Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

SCOTTISH WIDOWS' FUND AND LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY BILL (By Order)

STANDARD LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY BILL (By Order)

Orders for Third Reading read.

To be read the Third time upon Tuesday 10 June.

TYNE AND WEAR BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday 12 June.

SOUTH YORKSHIRE BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read. To be read a Second time upon Tuesday 10 June.

BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday 12 June.

LONDON TRANSPORT (No. 2) BILL (By Order)

Read a Second time and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME DEPARTMENT

Stockport Magistrates' Court

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is satisfied with accommodation for the magistrates' court in Stockport.

The Minister of State, Home Office, (Mr. Leon Brittan): Responsibility for magistrates' courts accommodation rests initially with the magistrates' courts committee and the providing authority, Stockport metropolitan district council, which was given approval in 1978 to resume forward planning on a scheme to provide a replacement courthouse.

Mr. Bennett: Will not the Minister agree that, in the end, it is for his Department to give approval for a replacement courthouse? Does not he agree that the present courthouse in Stockport is one of the most squalid in the land?

Mr. Brittan: I agree that the present courthouse in Stockport needs replacing. It is high on the list of projects. It has, unfortunately, not been possible to fix a date for commencement of work, but the fact that approval has been given to resume forward planning indicates that the Home Office shares the view expresed by the hon. Gentleman about the need for its replacement.

Police Recruitment

Mr. Renton: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is satisfied with the level of recruitment into the police force.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. William Whitelaw): At 31 March 1980, the strength of the police service in England and Wales was 114,543, an increase of 4,234 during 1979 plus 1,234 so far this year. Many forces are close to establishment and this is a cause for satisfaction, but there are still substantial deficiencies in some areas, especially London.

Mr. Renton: Bearing in mind the comments made at the conference in Torquay yesterday, does my right hon. Friend think that hostile comment in the media


is having, or is likely to have, an adverse effect on police recruitment? What does my right hon. Friend think of Mr. William Deedes' suggestion that a Select Committee should be urgently called to reexamine the Police Act and changes in police duties?

Mr. Whitelaw: Adverse comment is clearly not having an adverse effect on recruitment. The police should be ready at all times to listen to, and to respond to, constructive criticism. At the same time, I do not think that there is any reason for the police to be subjected, as they sometimes are, to unfair criticism.
I noted what Mr. William Deedes said. I would get into great trouble in certain quarters if, having established a Select Committee on Home Affairs in this House, I was to start saying that what it was doing could somehow be done by someone else.

Mr. Tilley: Is the Secretary of State aware of the strain that recent recruiting is placing upon training facilities, especially in the Metropolitan Police area? Hendon college, which I visited recently, is vastly overstretched. Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that more resources are needed? Is he aware that many London Members feel that the present level of training should be maintained, and possibly increased, particularly in areas such as community relations?

Mr. Whitelaw: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support which I very much welcome. I agree with him. I wish to expand training, particularly for the Metropolitan Police. I am very grateful to some other forces in the country which have spare training capacity and have been able to share it. That is the best way to proceed.

Mr. Eggar: May I thank my right hon. Friend for his assurance concerning the absence of training facilities in the Metropolitan area, which is very worrying to London Members? Will he give the House an assurance that, when trained policemen are available, they will be allocated to outer London in the same ratio as to inner London, since there is a danger of their being allocated to the high risk areas which are generally regarded as being in inner London?

Mr. Whitelaw: This must be a matter under the control of the Metropolitan

Police Commissioner who will, no doubt, take note of what my hon. Friend said.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Did the Home Secretary find the forecast of the chief constable of Sussex at this conference a little worrying, since it seems that in years to come recruitment will be not of policemen but of soldiers? Is not that a decision which ought to be taken by democratically-elected people rather than by chief constables?

Mr. Whitelaw: Such decisions will be taken by democratically-elected people. I think that all the chief constables accept that our policing in this country, whether in respect of terrorist incidents or disorder, has been seen over recent years to be based on our traditional community policing methods. As long as I have any responsibility in the matter it will remain that way.

Juvenile Crime and Vandalism

Mr. Cadbury: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will consider further measures to reverse the continuing rise in the level of juvenile crime and vandalism.

Mr. Brittan: By strengthening the police and improving the sanctions available to the courts we are already seeking more effective ways of preventing and deterring juvenile crime. We are also considering what legislative changes are necessary further to strengthen the powers of the courts in dealing with juveniles. But any reduction in juvenile offending must greatly depend on the continuing efforts of parents, teachers, and others concerned with children in the community.

Mr. Cadbury: I am grateful for that answer. Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that in my constituency and in many urban areas the level of vandalism is approaching intolerable proportions? It seems that in many cases parents are reluctant to assume responsibility for the behaviour of their children. Will my hon. and learned Friend consider giving the courts extra powers to impose fines on the parents of children who misbehave?

Mr. Brittan: I welcome the opportunity to describe the extensive powers that the courts already have. Under the 1933 Act the court must, when awarding fines, compensation or costs against a child, make the parents or guardians pay


unless the parent or guardian cannot be found or the court is satisfied that he or she has not conduced to the commission of the offence by neglecting to exercise due care of the child or young person. In the case of older offenders between 14 and 17. the court has the discretion to exercise that power. I hope that the full extent of those powers will be appreciated. They have an important part to play in dealing with the problem that my hon. Friend identified.

Mr. Christopher Price: Has the Minister studied the various reports of Dr. Belson about the connection between violence on television and juvenile crime and vandalism? Will the Home Office start to take this connection seriously and study what should be done about it?

Mr. Brittan: The relationship between violence on television and what happens in the world at large is important, but I am not entirely clear what consequences for action the hon. Gentleman suggests should flow from that.

Mr. Farr: In view of the level of juvenile vandalism involving air weapons, will my hon. and learned Friend look into the possibility of pioneering a national scheme of instruction whereby young persons who want to use weapons of that sort can be taught to do so safely, legally and properly?

Mr. Brittan: I am glad to hear that idea. I should like to consider it. Perhaps I may write to my hon. Friend to see whether he has a further concept of how it might be worked out.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: What has happened since the general election? Does not the hon. and learned Gentleman recall all the promises that a Conservative victory would bring down the crime rate in this respect, since when they have gone up and up? What will the Government do about that?

Mr. Brittan: I do not accept that the figures bear the interpretation that the right hon. Gentleman has placed upon them. I concentrated on the question of the powers of the courts, because that is a practical step that can be and has been taken. The Government have already introduced 15 new attendance centres. They have introduced changed regimes in two detention centres. We are at the advanced stage of preparing proposals to put to the

country relating to young offenders more generally. If we add to that the action that has been taken over the police it can be seen that we have been following a policy of implementing what we promised during the general election.

Parliamentary Candidacy (Age)

5. Mr. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has reached a decision about reducing the age at which people can stand for election to this House.

Mr. Brittan: No, Sir. As soon as we have, we shall inform the House.

Mr. Knox: Does not my hon. and learned Friend think that it is anomalous that people can vote at 18 but cannot stand for election to this House until they are 21? Does he realise that Mr. Speaker's Conference in the 1970–74 parliament recommended that the age at which people could stand for election should be reduced to 18? Is it not time that something was done about that?

Mr. Brittan: There is considerable force in what my hon. Friend said. Whether the political parties would wish to choose candidates aged between 18 and 21 is another matter; whether the electorate would wish to elect them is yet another. It is a little difficult to understand whether there should be a legal barrier to them however.

Mr. Michael Brown: Will my hon. Friend take it from me that there is considerable difficulty, at the age of 24, in persuading a selection committee that one has reached a suitable age for election? Is he further aware that there is not the pressure from the people of this country that Members of Parliament should be of a younger age than those who always represent certain constituencies?

Mr. Brittan: I have not found the pressure overwhelming, but the question whether there should be a legal barrier deserves serious consideration.

Riot Control

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will advise chief constables to extend training in riot control to all officers, and to increase Special Patrol Group manpower and supplies of


equipment for the control of riots and terrorist attacks.

Mr. Whitelaw: I would prefer to await the outcome of the review of arrangements for handling spontaneous disorder which I announced on 28 April.

Mr. Winterton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us on the Government Benches very much support the Special Patrol Group? Does he agree that its work is vital for the maintenance of law and order? Does he further consider that it is significant that the vast majority of those bodies or individuals who seek to criticise the SPG also seek to undermine the institutions of our country, and that many of them, including the Anti-Nazi League, have been taken over by the Socialist Workers Party.

Mr. Whitelaw: The only point I have ever made is that I believe that the SPG to be a most important mobile reserve of police which has done a considerable job in the Metropolitan area. I strongly support its continuance. Some changes have been made recently by the Commissioner. I think that they are right. The basic work of the SPG is of enormous importance.

Mr. Bidwell: Does the Home Secretary agree that it is misleading to put a question in this bracket, so as to equate the policing requirement for dealing with civil disturbances arising from racist Fascist activity with that for dealing with terrorism and similar problems? Does he agree, that while the inquest on Blair Peach did not pinpoint any one officer as being guilty, it gave rise to questions about behaviour and about weaponry kept in police lockers? Will the right hon. Gentleman keep the use of the Special Patrol Group on occasions of civil disorder of that kind under continuous review? Does he agree that there is a certain contradiction in what he said earlier——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has taken long enough for two supplementary questions.

Mr. Whitelaw: I think that it would be wrong to make comments which could be used later in judicial proceedings which may yet well arise as a result of that incident. I would not wish to do so. However, I believe that the verdict

of the inquest is one on which everyone concerned should sensibly stand and I would not think it right to reopen the matter in any way. Of course, there is need in all these matters for community policing on the one hand, which is very important, and on the other hand there is the need to deal with spontaneous disorder, which requires a different form of policing at the time, which is something that we all have to accept.

Mr. George Cunningham: Will the Secretary of State clarify what he meant when he referred to the possibility of future legal actions? Would he agree that this matter of recruitment to and training of the Special Patrol Group and any similar bodies is far too important to be treated in anything other than a very impartial and calm manner? Has the right hon. Gentleman any comments to make now, or can he tell the House when he will have comments to make, on the riders attached to the inquest verdict in the Blair Peach case—a rather surprising verdict in the view of many—because those riders made comments upon the SPG? Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to have any statement to make to the House about consequential action in the light of those riders?

Mr. Whitelaw: I merely referred to what I have read in the press about talk of judicial proceedings on both sides.
The hon. Gentleman should appreciate that these matters were considered very calmly, because several months ago the Commissioner announced some changes in the organisation of the SPG which actually met completely the riders put by the jury at the inquest.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that a police officer, whether he be a member of the SPG or anything else, is entitled to just the same presumption of innocence as any other citizen, and that the morale of the police generally has been badly affected by the trial in the headlines and the aspersions on the SPG without evidence?

Mr. Whitelaw: I am bound to agree with what my hon. Friend says. I think that the right answer is to abide by what was said at the inquest, to realise that we have already taken the action that was necessary and to let the matter be closed there.

Police Complaints Board

Mr. Dormand: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received about the functioning of the Police Complaints Board.

Mr. Whitelaw: I have received a few representations from Members of Parliament and others commenting on the functioning of the Police Complaints Board. I shall take these into account in considering the board's triennial review report.

Mr. Dormand: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that my question is not an implied criticism of the police in this matter? Is not the fact that police investigate police an inherent weakness in the scheme? The only evidence which the Police Complaints Board considers is submitted from the police themselves. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the concern felt by a number of hon. Members that it is not possible to get a straight answer to the question of how many complaints are submitted to the board and how many are sustained?

Mr. Whitelaw: These are matters which properly arise when we consider the board's triennial review. I think that we must all remember, that after exhaustive discussions, the Labour Government decided to introduce the Police Complaints Act, on the basis that it was introduced. They went into all the matters to which the hon. Gentleman has referred and decided that in all the circumstances this was the best way of proceeding. Whether it is the best way and whether we should change it we have every right to decide after the three-year report. But it was this House, under the Labour Government, which introduced the Act as it stands.

Mr. James A. Dunn: At the time of the triennial review, will the right hon. Gentleman consider a different system for submitting complaints? Will he accept that there is a case to be made for the possibility of complaints being made direct to the Police Complaints Board and not necessarily to the constabulary of which complaint is being made? That would resolve some of the doubts and anxieties which naturally occur from time to time and are further stimulated from

time to time by comment, particularly in the media.

Mr. Whitelaw: I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman says. I think that we would find in the procedure very considerable problems as far as police investigations are concerned.

Voluntary Services Unit

Mr. Teddy Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the work of the Voluntary Services Unit of his Department

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Timothy Raison): The Voluntary Services Unit was set up in 1973 for the purpose of encouraging voluntary effort. It has three main functions: to make grants to certain voluntary organisations; to co-ordinate and develop Government policy towards the voluntary sector as a whole; and to take initiatives to encourage voluntary effort in the community. I believe that, since its inception, the VSU has played a significant role in achieving its objectives.

Mr. Taylor: At a time when we are being told that a painful search for economy is being made in every area, has the Home Secretary's attention been drawn to the fact that the unit has committed itself to giving £42,000 of taxpayers' money to a body called " SCARP ", whose national newspaper, which I have here, records on the front page that 1980 should be the year of "Rock against Thatcher", explains that Tory policies are no good for anyone, and invites applications for lapel badges with the slogan " Rinse Out Blue Scum ". Does the Home Secretary feel that this is an appropriate use of public money? Will he be willing to discuss with the Charity Commission how many bodies supported by the VSU enjoy charitable status——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is also taking up enough time for two supplementary questions. That is two that we have lost altogether.

Mr. Raison: I agree with my hon. Friend that the issue of the newspaper to which he referred is quite deplorable. The grant is currently under active review. The matter has, I understand, been drawn to the attention of the Charity


Commission which has the responsibility for deciding what is charitable, and not the Home Secretary.

Dr. Summerskill: Will the hon. Gentleman resist attacks in general on the VSU in view of the very valuable work that it has done and is doing towards the development of voluntary services? Will he give an assurance that the funds given to the unit are, in real terms, just as great as when the present Government took office, and if possible even greater?

Mr. Raison: I said in my reply that we attach importance to the role of the VSU. I believe that I am right in saying that we have maintained the level of funding in real terms.

Mr. Alan Clark: It may or may not be desirable to attack the VSU in general, but can my hon. Friend at least assure the House that he is looking at all those organisations which receive grants from the unit because in a very large number of cases they are, to a greater or lesser degree, subversive, and that causes grave disquet among those who know about it?

Mr. Raison: Actual complaints about objectionable political activity have been received in respect of only two projects financed by the VSU. Funding for one of these, the Tyne and Wear resource centre, has now ceased. The other matter, as I have said, is under review.

Mr. Allan Roberts: One of the greatest things about our democracy is that central and local government departments very often fund voluntary organisations which are critical of the body funding them. Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that if we were to attack and criticise any voluntary group that criticised an organisation or a State body that funded it we would be destroying democracy?

Mr. Raison: Clearly, we do not intend to control every detail of every activity of organisations funded by the VSU, but, as I have said, I believe that what occurred in the case of the newspaper referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) was quite unacceptable.

Sir William Clark: My hon Friend says that the matter is under review. When will the review be completed? Does not he agree that, while the review

is going on, no further money should be given to this organisation?

Mr. Raison: The matter will be concluded very rapidly indeed.

Mr. Alton: Is the Minister seriously saying that any organisation which publishes in its newspaper the views of perhaps even another organisation—which I believe is what happened in this case—will have its grant reviewed and possibly withdrawn? Is he saying that he is introducing a form of State censorship of organisations like SCARP?

Mr. Raison: I am not saying that I am introducing a form of State censorship, but I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he should have a look at this newspaper and ask himself whether he thinks that the material was justified.

Police Computer Network

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, in the light of the evidence supplied to him, he will investigate the security of the police computer network.

Mr. Whitelaw: No information has come to light to bear out speculation in a newspaper report that safeguards in the system have been evaded.

Mr. Roberts: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware, however, that in recent years equipment has become available at the cost of a few hundred pounds which could be used to decode the coding system? If that is so, would it not be possible for criminal information to be extracted from the central bank or even for false information to be put into it?

Mr. Whitelaw: I appreciate the expertise of the hon. Gentleman in this context and I am grateful to him for raising the matter. It is important that we should always be on the lookout for any security evasions of this kind. We are making certain procedural changes, which I believe is right but I think that it would be counter-productive to disclose them to the House.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: Does the Home Secretary agree that there is a general problem here and not just a particular one? Would it not now be a good idea if we were to discuss the Lindop committee report? It is not a matter of


reaching decisions on it but the House, at times, should discuss the general issue before Governments proceed with legislation.

Mr. Whitelaw: I can only say that I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. It would be helpful. However, it is not in his hands, or mine, to decide when that should be.

Alcoholic Offenders

Mr. Best: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the treatment of alcoholic offenders.

Mr. Brittan: Treatment facilities for alcoholic offenders not in custody are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. For those received in prison suffering from alcoholism, prison medical officers supervise treatment. In many prisons psychiatrically qualified medical officers and visiting consultant psychiatrists are available to offer psychotherapy if this is indicated. A few prisons have specialist units. Most others have an Alcoholics Anonymous group or a group offering counselling about drink-related problems.

Mr. Best: My hon. and learned Friend knows that many prisoners are alcoholics and should not be in prison at all. It is now nine years since we had a Home Office report recommending the setting up of detoxification centres round the country. I know that there have been experiments in Leeds and Manchester. When will my hon. and learned Friend come forward to the House with recommendations? Is not the period of assessment of those two centres nearing completion? We must have an answer soon as to what will happen to these people.

Mr. Brittan: As far as those two centres are concerned, the result of the assessments will be for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services to consider. I understand that the outcome of the assessments is likely to be available next year.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Does not the hon. and learned Gentleman accept that, as his hon. Friend said, it is inappropriate to put drunken offenders in prison? Does he agree that the £30,000 that the Home

Secretary has given to the wet shelters, though welcome, is too small for the needs that are evident, particularly as a large proportion of the deaths in police custody occur as a result of alcoholic poisoning? Will the hon. and learned Gentleman now answer his hon. Friend and say when the proposals and the recommendations of the 1971 report will be implemented by his Department?

Mr. Brittan: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that imprisonment is an inappropriate penalty for drunkenness. Nobody doubts that. The people to whom the hon. Gentleman refers are, on the whole, fine defaulters. The measure referred to by the hon. Gentleman relating to wet shelters is designed to prevent alcoholics from going through the criminal justice system at all. The £30,000 is meant to start the project off. I hope that other money will be available. Consultations about that are taking place. This is only the beginning.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Is my hon. and learned Friend able to say what the average sentence is for an alcoholic offender and what is the recidivism rate among such people?

Mr. Brittan: It is impossible to give an average sentence for alcoholic offenders because the term " alcoholism " is not a specific one. There is a large number of people in prison who are there for ordinary offences but who also have alcoholic problems. But the specific problem of people going to prison because the have not paid fines imposed for drunkenness is one which we are approaching in the way that I have described.

Mrs. Renée Short: If the Minister accepts that it is absolutely pointless to put alcoholics in our overcrowded old prisons, what proposals does he have to increase the facilities for treating alcoholics properly in places such as Grendon Underwood?

Mr. Brittan: I mentioned the existence of facilities in my opening answer. In addition to Grendon there are Wormwood Scrubs, Holloway and Feltham borstal which provide facilities of this kind. We are now examining them to ascertain the extent to which they can be extended.

Mr. Barry Jones: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it possible to have a wet shelter for No. 10 Downing Street?

Mr. Speaker: That does not arise out of that question.

Fall-out Shelters

Mr. Allan Roberts: asked the Secretary of State for he Home Department how many fall-out shelters are constructed under, in or adjoining public buildings; and how many new such shelters are under construction.

Mr. Brittan: No central records are kept because it has not been general Government policy to provide fall-out shelters in public buildings.

Mr. Roberts: May I congratulate the Minister on the added responsibilities that he has been given in this direction? That adequately illustrates the priorities of the Government. They have made this job more important after downgrading the job of the Minister with responsibilities for the disabled.
Is the Minister aware that there is great anger on Merseyside that public money is being spent on fall-out shelters under such buildings as police stations, when there is no public money available for peace-time activities such as industrial investment? Does not the Minister accept that extra expenditure on these fall-out shelters is kidding the public into believing that there is a defence against nuclear weapons when there is not?

Mr. Brittan: Since I have said that it is not general Government policy to provide fall-out shelters in public buildings I can only conclude that the hon. Gentleman, kind as his welcome to me was, devised his supplementary question before he had heard the main answer.

Mr. Churchill: While accepting that Her Majesty's Government are quite right to put great emphasis on deterring rather than surviving a war, would my hon. and learned Friend, none the less, take steps to identify all existing buildings which may have basements and underground garages suitable as fall-out shelters?

Mr. Brittan: Local authorities have been asked to carry out a survey of existing buildings to identify those capable of providing shelter. That survey is proceeding.

Deportation Orders

Mr. Freud: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many deportation orders he has signed in respect of foreign nationals under 17 years of age.

Mr. Raison: Information about the number of deportation orders signed in respect of persons under 17 years of age is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate expense. Such cases are, however, very unusual.

Mr. Freud: In view of the ease with which foreign students can obtain entry permits to pursue educational courses in this country—which we welcome—will not the Minister reconsider the Government's current policy of deporting young people in full time education for the technical misdemeanours of their parents, as seems to be the case with my Wisbech constituent?

Mr. Raison: Our belief is that where there is a strong case for deporting the parents—as there is in this case—it really does not make sense to allow an integral member of the family to stay behind. No decision has yet been made to deport Miss Yau, to whom I think the hon. Gentleman was referring. Her parents and her brother are to be deported for overstaying and Miss Yau is being given an opportunity to leave voluntarily with them. Only if she does not do so will deportation be considered.

Mr. James A. Dunn: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the answer that he has just given provides cause for concern and anxiety? I believe—and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman shares this view—that the sins of the father should never be visited upon the children. Could not the hon. Gentleman's answer be interpreted in the opposite way?

Mr. Raison: We are speaking of a 15-year-old girl and there is absolutely nothing unreasonable in believing that the family should remain together.

Violence Against the Police

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many members of the Metropolitan Police have been victims of violence in each of the last three years;


and how many so far during the current year.

Mr. Whitelaw: The only figures readily available are those for officers assaulted on duty given in the annual reports of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. The figures for 1977–79 were 4,030, 3,955 and 4,185 respectively. The equivalent figure for 1980 up to 21 April was 997.

Mr. Townsend: Does my right hon. Friend agree that those figures are disturbingly high? Is he convinced that the courts have sufficient penalties at their disposal for those who assault police officers on duty? Is new protective equipment part of the answer and what new action will the Home Office take in this context?

Mr. Whitelaw: These are certainly worrying figures. They represent the high cost to police officers—and often the high cost in money terms—of coping with disorders and violence with our traditional community police methods. Nevertheless, I believe that these methods are absolutely right and we must persist with them. I hope that we can persuade—in our review of public order and in what action this House takes afterwards—those who wish to conduct demonstrations that it is in their interest and the interests of everybody, to do so without violence. That is something on which this House should give a strong lead.

Mr. Christopher Price: Will the Secretary of State join with the whole House in sending good wishes to Stephen Hickling, the 19-year old policeman whose hand was blown off at Catford police station a few weeks ago? Does he agree that when policemen are injured in that way it should be possible for the Metropolitan Police to find ways of continuing to employ them.

Mr. Whitelaw: I gladly respond to what the hon. Gentleman has so generously said. I am sure that the House will wish to join me in that. It is important to point out also that the response to that incident showed the high esteem in which the police are held in that area and throughout the country. There was a magnificent response in money and in many other ways to the plight of this unfortunate police officer. The Commissioner has made it clear that he hopes

that it will be possible—as we all hope that it will be—for this police officer to continue in some employment. That must be a matter for the future. The response at the time showed significant support for the police.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if 4,000 or more Metropolitan Police officers are injured by violence every year inevitably they will insist upon more and more protective uniforms and devices? Does he accept that that would be most unfortunate since it would separate the police from the public? Would it not be much better to decry in every way assaults on the police, because otherwise we are bound to go in the direction of paramilitary policing?

Mr. Whitelaw: I have already made it clear that it would be a retrograde step for the country if we went down the road of paramilitary policing. After all, we have a system of community policing which is the envy of the world. We should keep it that way. We should be sad if we had to depart from it. However, the House must give a lead to all people who take part in marches and demonstration and tell them that violence can never be justified on such occasions.

Mr. Skinner: In view of all the wonderful things that have been said about our police force, will the Home Secretary give a guarantee that in their next pay award they will be awarded not less than 22 per cent.—the current rate of inflation?

Mr. Whitelaw: Police pay negotiations are conducted under the Edmund-Davies formula. They will be conducted under that formula in future.

Irish Citizens

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his latest estimate of the number of Irish citizens resident in the United Kingdom and entitled to vote in the United Kingdom elections.

Mr. Brittan: I understand that the labour force survey taken in 1979 suggests that there may be close to half a million citizens of the Irish Republic aged 18 and over resident in the United Kingdom. Those whose names appear in an electoral register would be entitled to vote at all elections in Great Britain and


at parliamentary and European Parliament elections in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I am grateful for that reply. In the light of those figures can my hon. and learned Friend give the House three convincing reasons—or even one or two—why his Department appears to be so reluctant to terminate this totally unreciprocated anomaly?

Mr. Brittan: The anomaly to which my hon. Friend refers must be considered in the light of the history of relations between the two countries and of the efforts that the two Governments are making to improve co-operation on security matters affecting Northern Ireland. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister stated in reply to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), the Government do not at present have proposals to change the position.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: If the estimates are based in whole or in part upon the forms completed by electors for registration, is it possible for the Government to publish in the Official Report or elsewhere estimates for the respective constituencies in Great Britain?

Mr. Brittan: The estimates are not derived from that source but from the labour force survey.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Approximately how many British citizens whose domicile is in the Irish Republic are not entitled to vote for the Dail Eireann? Is there any truth in the reports that the present Dublin Government intend to accord reciprocity?

Mr. Brittan: I do not have the figures, but I shall see whether I can obtain them for my hon. Friend. We do not have the details of proposals made by the Prime Minister of the Republic, but obviously we shall consider any proposals that are made.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that Irish citizens in this country, many of whom have lived here for many years—including citizens from the North and the South and two Members of Parliament—play a most important part in the life of the country, in spite of murmurs from the Government side of the House?

Mr. Brittan: There is no doubt that Irish citizens play an important part in the country, but whether they should have the right to vote is another question.

Oral Answers to Questions — EASTERN EUROPE

Ql. Mr. Dalyell: asked the Prime Minister if she will make a statement on the policy of Her Majesty's Government with regard to Eastern Europe, in the light of her proposals to initiate a massive propaganda campaign, using powerful transmitters, to beam television programmes to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): Our policy is to use the resources at our disposal, consistent with our international obligations, to ensure that Britain's voice is heard by the peoples of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, as well as by the rest of the world.

Mr. Dalyell: As a lawyer, was it prudent for the Prime Minister to float an idea that breaches international agreements? As a scientist would not it have been wise if she had checked her technical facts? Is this yet another case—to borrow the delicate phrase used yesterday by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury—of " suck it and see? "

The Prime Minister: I hardly think so, bearing in mind that I have been interested in this for some time. As a politician, I would do what I believe that the hon. Gentleman would do, bearing in mind the extent to which he practices freedom of speech. I would pursue the ideological struggle and try to put across the Western free world case to Soviet Russia and Eastern Europe as hard as I possibly can.

Mr. Adley: Is not there a danger of lumping together the situations in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe? Does my right hon. Frend agree that there is ample evidence that the peoples enslaved by the Soviet Union in Eastern Europe are almost literally dying to make contact with the West? Will the Prime Minister do her utmost to increase our broadcasts to the people of the enslaved Eastern European countries in particular so that they know at least that we in


the West occasionally think about then-plight?

The Prime Minister: I do not know whether there is much difference between some of the enslaved peoples of Eastern Europe and the USSR. I make a point of seeing all the dissidents who come out so that I can hear precisely their experiences.

Mr. Skinner: All of them?

The Prime Minister: I see all the dissidents who ask to see me. Many of them do. We are particularly anxious that broadcasts to the Soviet Union and the East European States should have top priority in the external services.

Mr. Hooley: Will the free world case include a detailed explanation about the deployment of vast numbers of nuclear missiles in Western Europe and, in particular, an explanation of why the majority are in the United Kingdom?

The Prime Minister: The fact is that the Soviet Union has the latest nuclear missiles—the SS 20—and it is facing Europe. We must have an effective deterrent.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)

Mr. Whitehead: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 5 June.

The Prime Minister: This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be having further meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. This evening I shall be giving a reception for the England football team before leaving for a visit to Cheshire.

Mr. Whitehead: When preparing for her arduous round of duties, did the Prime Minister have time over breakfast this morning to discuss the newspaper allegation that one of the firms paying starvation wages in South Africa is Burmah Oil? Does she realise that she has a double personal obligation to the House to ensure that her Ministers insist on the publication of the list of 33 firms involved in this affair? Will she explain why, today of all days, we are to be told that the work of the labour attaché

in Pretoria, who has been our personal monitor in these matters, is to be phased out?

The Prime Minister: I shall take the latter question first. The report about the labour attaché in Pretoria is not correct. The present attaché is retiring. He will be 60 years old this year. He is being replaced, and the person replacing him will take over precisely the same functions that are performed by the present labour attaché.
With regard to the hon. Gentleman's other question—he usually asks two—all facts are published in the reports of the companies, and under the voluntary code all reports are available in the Library of the House.

Mr. John Browne: Will my right hon. Friend say whether the Government have received the report of the European Commission of Human Rights relating to the closed shop and especially to the case of Young James and Webster? Will she also say whether the Government intend to fight that case under article 11(1) before the European Court, or whether they intend to accept the recommendations of the report?

The Prime Minister: The Government have received the report of the commission. We do not believe that it is critical of the new provisions in the Employment Bill, which are very different from the law as it was when those people lost their jobs by virtue of the closed shop. As my hon. Friend will know, the report of the commission goes to the European Court. I understand that a court has been established, but the date for the hearing has not yet been announced. It is right that the Government should attend the court and put their views on the closed shop, which are very different from the views of the previous Labour Administration.

Mr. Cook: Before the Prime Minister's reception this evening, will she find time to telephone the NEB and ask it to stop playing football with the future of Ferranti? Is she aware that the proposal to dispose of the NEB's interest in Ferranti in one go has been rejected by the united work force, and condemned even by management as being against the best interests of the company? Will she explain why, for the sake of a fast buck,


she is taking such a gamble with the future of high technology industry in Britain, which we need if we are to survive as a manufacturing nation?

The Prime Minister: The NEB helped Ferranti when it was in need. Ferranti no longer needs help through the NEB. It is for that board to dispose of the shares in the best way possible.

Mr. Madel: asked the Prime Miniser if she will list her official engagements for 5 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I have just given.

Mr. Madel: In view of the increasing interest in reform of the House of Lords and our system of government, will my right hon. Friend discuss today with the Lord Chancellor the possibility of publishing a Green Paper in the autumn, which would give the House an opportunity to decide how best we might improve our vitally important system of dual-chamber government?

The Prime Minister: I know that my hon. Friend takes a close interest in these matters. There are many conflicting views on whether the House of Lords should be reformed, and, if so, precisely how that could be achieved. Some hon. Members who have been in the House for a long time remember a number of efforts in this Chamber to reform the House of Lords, but they were not successful. There is no possibility of the Government producing a Green Paper in the autumn. I think that my hon. Friend will agree that, for the time being, we have more urgent matters on our plate.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Has the Prime Minister had the opportunity today to hear the BBC radio reports that the West German Government would like the opportunity to obtain North Sea oil more cheaply? In view of the communiqué from the summit conference of the EEC few weeks ago, when the whole question of oil supplies to the Community was discussed, will she say how the Government intend to respond to the request from the West German Government?

The Prime Minister: Under existing law there would be no possibility of that happening. The oil that the Government can purchase under existing contracts

must be purchased at the world price. If that world price is not agreed with BNOC, it can go to arbitration. Those are the laws that we inherited from the previous Labour Administration, and those are the laws that are observed.

Mr. Eggar: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it remains the intention of the Government to return ownership in nationalised industries directly to the people? Will she further consider whether shares in such corporations as BNOC and BGC could be given directly to all citizens, taxpayers and pensioners? Does she recognise that such a proposal would encourage share ownership, lead to a recognition of the need for profit, and ensure that no further nationalisation could be introduced by any future Labour Government?

The Prime Minister: Where a large proportion of shares in nationalised industries is being sold to the public we believe that those who work in the industry should have preference in purchasing those shares. That would be to the advantage both of the industry and the British people. With regard to a scheme to give shares in all nationalised industries to the British people, I know that it was partly done in Vancouver. However, we have a rather larger number of people in Britain. But we would not rule out that suggestion.

Mr. Alton: Will the Prime Minister take time today to discuss with the Minister of Transport the publication of the Government's White Paper on roads? Will she specifically consider the announcement made yesterday by the Merseyside county council to the effect that the Liverpool inner ring road will cost an additional £1 million? Will she consider scrapping that scheme, which has more to do with vested interest than with need, and redeploying the money into the local Health Service to ensure that the local hospitals remain open?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman may have a constituency point, but I think that he will recognise that the road programme has been reduced. There is not much scope for it being reduced further. If I were to accede to his request I should receive many complaints from other people.

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Prime Minister what are her official engagements for Thursday 5 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon Member to the reply which I gave earlier.

Mr. Hamilton: Will the Prime Minister take time today to read the speeches made by the Secretary of State for Industry in California and other parts of America? Is she aware that he is saying that we are making progress away from stagnation? Can she produce a single shred of evidence to show that that is happening? As the Secretary of State for Industry is in America primarily to find American silicon chip investment for Britain, would not he be better served by announcing now the £25 million for Inmos in Britain?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman asked two questions. On the first question, my right hon. Friend is especially concerned to boost the microelectronics industry in Britain. It is a considerably expanding industry, and is taking on far more labour than other industries. I do not want the House to hold me to the precise figure, but I believe that I am right to say that the increase in exports of microelectronics this year over last year is of the order of 30 per cent. That is worth boosting and worth shouting about.
On Inmos, the first £25 million given to it by the previous Labour Administration through the NEB was given to establish a factory in Colorado Springs, and has so far resulted only in about 37 jobs in Britain. We are considering carefully the conditions that we should attach to any money going in that direction.

Mr. James Callaghan: Will the Prime Minister please answer the question about whether we are moving away from stagnation? Is it not the case that we are facing a year by year decline in our industrial progression? Because of the daily announcement of redundancies, will she please take the matter seriously? What direct responsibility will the Government take for handling the growing level of unemployment which, over the coming months, will become worse?

The Prime Minister: With regard to the right hon. Gentleman's latter point,

I agree that there is a substantial number of redundancies being announced. But I must say what he frequently said from this Dispatch Box—albeit in a slightly different way—that one man's wage increase can cost another man his job. That is frequently happening. Some of the wage increases that are totally unrelated to productivity are pricing whole firms out of the market, and people are choosing to buy more competitive products from overseas.

Mr. Callaghan: Whatever may be the impact of wages on the level of employment, is it not the case that the level of interest rates—on which a false start was made last Tuesday—and the Government's monetary policy are having a more direct impact on the number of jobs? Will she take into account what was said by the Manpower Services Commission yesterday, namely, that it cannot fulfil its responsibilities with the present level of revenue that it receives? The right hon. Lady must take responsibility for the level of unemployment. In addition to blaming the trade unions, she has a responsibility and she must assume it.

The Prime Minister: No one can create genuine jobs by printing money. That only creates more inflation, which leads to more unemployment. I, too, read the report of the Manpower Services Commission. I think that it is worth reading in its entirety. I noticed one very telling comment:
 The generation of permanent new jobs is outside the Commission's powers.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. James Callaghan: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business for next week?

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. St. John-Stevas): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 9 JUNE—Remaining stages of the Health Services Bill.
TUESDAY 10 JUNE—Progress on remaining stages of the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Bill.
Debate on the report of the Committee of Three on Community institutions.
WEDNESDAY 11 JUNE—Completion of remaining stages of the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Bill.
THURSDAY 12 JUNE—Supply [18th Alloted Day]: Until about Seven o'clock there will be a debate on disablement, and afterwards on the construction industry. Both debates will arise on Opposition motions.

Motion on the Diocese in Europe Church Measure.

FRIDAY 13 JUNE—Debate on the report of the committee of inquiry into the engineering profession under the chairmanship of Sir Montague Finniston (Cmnd 7794.)

MONDAY 16 JUNE—Debate on the report of the Brandt Commission, on a motion for the Adjournment.

[Debate on report from Committee of Three on Europe:

Relevant published report of the European Legislation etc. Committee—18th Report para, 2 H/C 159—xviii 1979–80.]

Mr. Callaghan: Will the Leader of the of the House take note that our debate on disablement will be about the adverse effects of the Government's policies on the disabled? The short debate on the construction industry will be to press the Government for a higher level of activity in that industry because of the serious unemployment that is occurring in it.
Finally, I should like to ask the Leader of the House about the EEC budget announcement. Now that we begin to examine the small print, we see that the arrangements are not quite as favourable as they seemed at first sight. May we assume that the Government, on an important matter such as this, will now arrange a debate, for which we will certainly wish to ask?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the information on the Opposition's motions. If I had had that information earlier, I should have been happy to announce it on his behalf.
I think that there is a case for a debate on the EEC budget, but it should be taken up and discussed through the usual channels.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: In view of the Venice summit, which is about to take place, if there is not time for a debate could my right hon. Friend arrange for a Foreign Office Minister to make a statement describing the exact nature of the Western-Middle Eastern peace initiative, which has received scant praise from either the President of Egypt or the President of the United States? Otherwise, we may be faced with one of those unfortunate situations in which what is undertaken by a British Foreign Secretary is later destroyed by the House of Commons.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I shall certainly pass on that request to my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal. I have had no request for a statement by my right hon. Friend till now.

Mr. Dubs: Does the Leader of the House agree that there is an urgent need for a debate on jury vetting, given that the practice, which has been called unconstitutional by at least one judge, is now taking place in courts all over the country and that undertakings given by the Attorney-General to the House are being ignored?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: There has been a further development in this matter, with another decision by, I think, the House of Lords. Therefore, we have to consider this matter in regard to the situation in the courts. However, as soon as it is disposed of in that manner I shall consider the hon. Gentleman's request.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: My right hon. Friend has given undertakings in the past that before we rise for the Summer Recess there will be an opportunity to discuss the outstanding recommendations of the Procedure Committee, in particular the proposal about the Public Bill procedure whereby Standing Committees will be allowed to take evidence for two, three or four sittings before proceeding to the discussion of a Bill. May I have his added reassurance that the House will be able to come to a decision on this matter before we rise for the Summer Recess?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I have given that assurance to the House. If the House does not accept that assurance, I do not know that reassurance adds very much to it, because presumably all the currency is invalidated together. It is the Government's clear intention, as stated in the


manifesto that the House will have an early opportunity to come to a decision on all the proposals in that report. We shall be placing proposals before the House before the Summer Recess.

Mr. Douglas: Will the Leader of the House consider asking his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry to place in the Library or the Vote Office a precis of the information submitted to him by the various institutions regarding the Finneston report, to aid us in the debate on Friday?
Secondly, we welcome these debates on the Finneston and Brandt reports, but will the right hon. Gentleman consider arranging an early debate on the Burgoyne committee report on offshore safety, as this is very important? While we might delay the matter, awaiting the Norwegian result, we should not delay too long in debating that important matter.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I shall certainly pass on to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry that interesting suggestion about putting documents and precis in the Library.
I cannot promise a debate in the immediate future on the Burgoyne report. We have made a good advance in this Business Statement, with debates on two extremely important reports.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will my right hon. Friend find time for an early debate on interest rates? If he cannot do that, will he get the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make a statement on interest rates, particularly as they affect small businesses? Is he aware that unless interest rates fall, small businesses, which are the seedcorn of future employment, will not exist for much longer to provide that employment?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: As my hon. Friend knows, it is not the Government's policy to maintain high interest rates a moment longer than is economically necessary. I shall pass on his urgings to my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I am sure that he will reflect upon them.

Mr. Cryer: Will the Leader of the House consider arranging an urgent and early debate on the textile industry, which is deeply affected by the high interest rates complained about by his hon. Friend

the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winter-ton)? Does he realise that in the first four months of this year there was a deficit of £200 million on textile goods in this country, and that over 500 jobs a week are being lost in the West Yorkshire industry? When will the Government initiate a debate so that we can check their performance and see what they are doing about it?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am aware of the grave situation facing the British textile industry. The Government have made it quite plain that when the multi-fibre arrangement, restricting imports into this country, expires in 1981 they are determined that it will be replaced by new measures to assist the industry. I cannot promise an early debate.

Mr. Nelson: In view of the widespread interest in the possibility of a European initiative in the Middle East and the threat to world peace from the impasse that has been reached in the Camp David talks, will my right hon. Friend consider providing time for a major debate on the Middle East?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: We should all like more debates on foreign affairs about——

Mr. Russell Kerr: The Middle East.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: The Middle East is part of foreign affairs. I am afraid that we cannot have a debate of that nature on the Middle East in the immediate future.

Mr. Sheerman: Will the right hon. Gentleman impress on his colleague the Secretary of State for Trade the importance of making an oral statement on the Tenerife air disaster—a disaster in which many of my constituents and constituents of a number of hon. Members lost their lives—at a time when holiday travel to areas such as the Spanish islands is reaching a peak? Many people are gravely concerned about the delay in the report of the investigation into the causes of that disaster.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is not possible to make a definitive statement on the disaster until the inquiries have been completed. My right lion. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade will consider making a further interim statement in the light of the outcome of meetings between an accident


investigation team from his Department and the Spanish mission of investigation in Madrid, which commenced on 3 June.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his decision to allocate time for a debate on the Brandt and Finniston reports. Does this show a slight chink of light, in that there may now be a possibility of a debate on information technology, which embraces such subjects as Inmos and Ferranti, and the whole strategy of support for the semiconductor industry of the United Kingdom—possibly the most important series of single industrial decisions that we face?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I cannot give my hon. Friend a categoric assurance, but by disposing of debates on these two important reports we increase the statistical likelihood—whatever that may be—of a debate on the matter about which my hon. Friend is so keen.

Mr. Canavan: When will the Secretary of State for Scotland make a statement about the continuing Scottish teachers' pay dispute? Instead of hiding in Whitehall, why does not the Secretary of State for Scotland tell the House that he will give local authorities the money to give teachers a big enough increase to keep up with the high rate of inflation created by this rotten Government?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: The pay of Scottish teachers is primarily for the relevant teachers' body, and discussions are continuing.

Mr. Bill Walker: In view of the considerable interest in Scotland in the proposals for the new Hampden Park, will my right hon. Friend arrange an early debate on the possibility of the Government's investing £8 million, which could be an open-ended investment, because that amount will be inadequate to supply the new Hampden? An early debate is needed.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I have noted what my hon. Friend said. I cannot promise an early debate, but I shall raise the matter with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Mr. Skinner: Will the Leader of the House encourage the Secretary of State for Trade to make a statement on the question of the 33 United Kingdom companies paying starvation

wages to black South African workers? In order to clear up any charge of hypocrisy, will he arrange for an early debate on this issue, especially as it has been revealed in The Guardian that those companies include Quinton Hazell, an offshoot of Burmah Oil, of which the husband of the Prime Minister is a director.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I do not think that that kind of personal reference, which is constantly made by the hon. Gentleman, does anything to advance the serious cause that he no doubt—[Interruption.] The fact that it was mentioned in The Guardian is no reason to repeat it in the House—possibly quite the reverse. The question is clearly a matter of considerable social importance, but I cannot promise an early debate on the subject.

Mr. Adley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the continuing military occupation of the West Bank elevates the need for an urgent debate on the Middle East above that of simply a general debate on foreign affairs? Is he further aware that there would be widespread support in the House for the Government's view that we are not prepared to tolerate an American veto on any British or European initiative? Will he please take note that we need an urgent debate on this sensitive and dangerous situation?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I have noted the view expressed by my hon. Friend, and I shall give it due weight, but a number of important subjects are competing for debates.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider inviting the Secretary of State for Trade to explain to the House and to the country why essential information about the payment by British companies of wages below starvation level to black workers in South Africa is not being published? As the Prime Minister made it clear that that information is available in the Library, what possible reason is there for hiding the information and putting the Government in the dock, along with the South African Government?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: The point raised by the hon. Gentleman has been fully answered by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. Her answer may not


have satisfied the hon. Gentleman, but she went a long way in her constructive reply, and I do not think that I can add to it.

Mr. Marlow: Will my right hon. Friend arrange an early debate on a system of tax allowances for taxidermists, in order to encourage the Labour Party to have the Leader of the Opposition stuffed, so that he may be kept around for a little longer, in view of the fact that there are no plausible alternatives? If there is no time for such a debate, in view of the strong feelings expressed by hon. Members on the Government Benches about Irish Republican citizens being allowed to vote in our general elections, will he arrange a debate on that issue?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I do not think that I shall venture into the interesting territory that has been opened up before me by my hon. Friend. On the whole, Business Question Time is a time for a a peaceable exchange of views, and I do not wish to put that at risk.

Mr. Whitehead: On the question of the list of British firms that has been compiled by Mr. Vose, our labour attaché in Pretoria, cannot the Leader of the House see the inconsistency between the Prime Minister's reply to me this afternoon—that this list is available to hon. Members—and the refusal to publish the list for public examination? Is this not a complete violation of the principle of open government, to which the Government are supposedly committed? Surely, there should be a statement from the Secretary of State for Trade.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I shall certainly bring that point to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade. But if those figures are made available in the Library, that makes them available to many articulate hon. Members, who can make good use of them.

Mr. Hill: May I re-emphasise the plea made by my hon. Friend the Member for Havant and Waterloo (Mr. Lloyd)? The Secretary of State for Industry is at present in America discussing ways of obtaining further finance and experience from Silicon Valley for this country. Surely when he returns he will make a

statement. Would that not be a suitable time at which to have a three-hour debate on this important export market, which is growing at the moment?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I agree that this is a most important subject for our trade. If there are significant developments, of course my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry will make a statement on them.

Mr. Foot: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise from the questions that have been put by my hon. Friends that they are asking for a statement on the matter of the wages paid to black South African workers? Although a document has been placed in the Library, we are asking for a statement in the House. In the light of what has occurred and of questions today, will not the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the matter and ask the Secretary of State for Trade to make a statement next week, giving an answer to the House of Commons on the subject?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: With great respect to the right hon. Gentleman, there is no need for me to reconsider what I said. We have had an answer from the Prime Minister this afternoon and I have said that I shall draw the exchanges in the House this afternoon to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade.

Mr. John Browne: Will my right hon. Friend please reconsider his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) in the light of what my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) said, and as actions taken by the Government in the next month or so will be critical to the lives of every man, woman and child in this country in terms of Middle East policy? Surely that deserves a debate, over and above a normal, global foreign affairs debate.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I have not promised a general debate on foreign affairs. What I am saying is that there is a great pressure on time for the remainder of this Session, and I cannot promise an early debate either on foreign affairs in general or on the Middle East in particular.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am prepared to call all the hon. Gentlemen who have risen—

Mrs. Renée Short: Mrs. Renée Short rose——

Mr. Speaker: Well, hon. Members. I beg the hon. Lady's pardon.
I am prepared to call the hon. Members who have risen, but I hope that it will be borne in mind that if they cannot get in on the first short debate there will be no point in their complaining about not being called then.

Mr. William Hamilton: Does the Leader of the House recognise that one day for the Health Services Bill is wholly inadequate, in view of the fact that it is a United Kingdom Bill and that in Committee there has been no opportunity to debate the structure or anything else concerned with the Health Service in Scotland? As the Government have a considerable number of new clauses and amendments to move on Report, will the right hon. Gentleman consider either suspending the rule on Monday or giving extra time on another day?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: We have already had half a day's debate on this subject and we have a second opportunity on Monday of dealing with it. One has to balance, by discussions through the usual channels, the need for thorough debate and the need not to go on beyond a reasonable hour.

Mr. Stoddart: Reverting to the question of the EEC agreement on the budget, does the right hon. Gentleman realise that this matter has some urgency, as many hon. Members are very concerned about the agreement reached, particularly in relation to higher food prices and the failure to reach a broad balance? I appreciate that this matter is to be discussed through the usual channels, but the matter is much more urgent than that. Hon. Members want a debate, and I believe that they should have that debate next week. Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the matter?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman wishes to have a debate urgently, but we have not received urgent representations—[Interruption.] Had there been urgent representations from the Opposition Front Bench they would have been taken fully into account. But I

have heard what has been said today and I shall consider what can be done.

Mr. Stallard: Has the right hon. Gentleman yet been able to see early-day motion 620, standing in my name and the names of over 100 hon. Members, representing all parties in the House? [That this House appeals to the Secretary of State for the Home Department to exercise the power of discretion available to him under the Immigration Act and withdraw the proposal to remove Verghese (Juno) and Meena Varki from the United Kingdom, in view of the fact that though technically in breach of Home Office procedure, the couple have, over the seven years they have lived in the United Kingdom, made an outstanding contribution to better the life of their neighbours, and worked effectively full" time and unpaid to promote and maintain good community relations in the Greater London area.]
The motion calls on the Home Secretary to exercise his discretion in the case of Juno and Meena Varki, two Camden residents, and in view of the widespread outside interests in this case, as well as interests inside the House and the interest in the broader principles of the Home Secretary's discretion, will the Leader of the House urgently arrange for a debate on this question?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am aware of this case, which has aroused anxiety and concern among hon. Members for some time, but my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, after considering all the representations submitted to him by hon. Members, came to the conclusion that the deportation should proceed, and signed the order in December. Since then my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office—the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison)—has had two meetings with hon. Members to consider further representations—I think that the last meeting was as recently as 7 May—but he also, having examined the situation, has concluded that there are no grounds for revising the decision.

Mr. Soley: May I remind the Leader of the House of his undertaking some weeks ago on the crisis in our prisons? May I ask for a date for that debate? Also, will he draw to the attention of the Attorney-General or the relevant Minister the desirability of his presence at that


debate, as a number of hon Members on both sides of the House are likely to make recommendations that will affect sentencing policy, which is outside the control of the Home Secretary alone?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: The May report is an extremely important one. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is still receiving evidence and reactions to it, and until that evidence has been received and reflected upon it would not be right to have a debate, but it is certainly my wish to have a debate on this important report as soon as possible.
The attendance of Ministers at the debate is a matter for them. I shall pass on the hon. Member's request to them.

Mrs. Renée Short: Will the Leader of the House arrange for an early debate on the unemployment position in the West Midlands? Is he aware that since I last raised this matter with the Prime Minister just before the Whitsun Recess, a further blow has fallen, with the loss of 3,000 jobs at Lucas? This matter is urgent.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I saw the report of the Lucas redundancies today. The question of unemployment is of considerable and continuing concern to the Government. Its solution depends on the working out of our economic policies in due course. I cannot promise an early debate.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall call the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack) after I have called those who had risen when I made my statement.

Mr. Coleman: Is the Leader of the House aware of the worsening unemployment situation, which is affecting every constituency in Wales, arising as a result of problems of the steel industry and the coalmining industry, and the decline of the Welsh economy? When can we have a debate on the Floor of the House, in which the Secretary of State for Wales, the Minister responsible for unemployment in Wales, can answer hon. Members?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am aware of the extremely grave unemployment situation in Wales, but I cannot promise an early debate on the Floor of the House—although

we may be able to have a debate by another means.

Mr. Spearing: The Leader of the House said that on Tuesday there is to be a debate on EEC institutions and on a paper that has been produced. Does that indicate that the matter will be discussed at the Venice summit? What will the motion be, and how long shall we have for the debate?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: The conclusions of this important document would be relevant to any discussions that take place at the Venice summit. The debate will probably be for one and a half hours, and it is likely to arise on either a " take note " motion or a motion for the Adjournment. That is a matter for discussion through the usual channels.

Mr. James A. Dunn: Will the Leader of the House provide time to discuss the dire plight of the people of Uganda? There is an early-day motion on the Order Paper of which I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware.

[That this House, concerned with the grievous problems of the people of Uganda, aware of the effect of the drought and acknowledging the food supply shortages, with the consequential tragic deaths from starvation and deprivation, calls upon Her Majesty's Government to give immediate aid and to rally the fellow members of the United Nations to give support, sustenance, and supplies, to ease the emergency within the regions which are suffering this devastation; and further calls upon the world to come to the aid of this sadly stricken nation and to rescue its people from almost certain death.]

Will he also take an opportunity to discuss with the appropriate Ministers the behaviour of the BBC when it interviewed the former Prime Minister of Uganda—an interview that caused offence to many people?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's motion on the subject of Uganda and the desperate situation there. I am afraid that I cannot promise an early debate, although the Government are watching the situation and action is being taken through the United Nations to accord relief.
I shall bring to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary


the hon. Member's point about the broadcast.

Mr. Allen McKay: Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the report "Policy for Roads, 1980" which has just been issued? I am sure that many hon. Members besides myself will be disappointed after reading that their project is being reserved. This applies particularly to the Penistone constituency, which lies between the Sheffield and Barnsley areas and has inadequate transport facilities, especially as the Penistone railway link is to be cut. On 21 May, as reported in column 490 of Hansard, the Minister said that he had not received the proposals, and yet the newspapers referred to British Rail speaking to the Department on the closure. Is it not time that we had this matter cleared up?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his ingenuity in inserting that constituency point into a business question. I am sure that that will be noted elsewhere in due course.
Like the hon. Gentleman, I received the paper on roads, in published form, only today. We must wait for reactions and discussions in general before we have a full debate on the matter.

Mr. Dalyell: Speaking in a peaceable spirit, may I ask the Leader of the House whether he has received reports on yesterday's debate on enterprise zones? Hon. Members from both sides asked the Financial Secretary a number of legitimate questions. Ultimately, we received the answer " Suck it and see." Doubtless the Leader of the House would use more felicitous language. Does he think that enterprise zones should be

debated during the discussion of the Finance Bill or during debates that involve the Departments of Industry and Trade, outside the context of the Finance Bill?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: We must all use our own language. We all have our own styles of reference. The phrase referred to by the hon. Member is not constantly on my lips. I followed the debate on enterprise zones. They are an extremely important part of the Finance Bill. They are a positive step——

Mr. Dalyell: They are not part of the Finance Bill.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Enterprise zones are part of the Finance Bill. They will make an important contribution to the recovery of the economy. I support them fully. It was important to bring forward the proposals and to debate them.

Mr. Cormack: Will my right hon. Friend take an early opportunity to announce the dates of the Summer Recess? Will he bear in mind that hon. Members with families would prefer to come back early in October than to sit into August?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I do not wish to be too discouraging, but those options are not necessarily alternatives. It is possible that the House will sit into August and come back in early October. I cannot make a statement about the dates of the Summer Recess now, because they will depend on the progress made on business in the House. With the Opposition's co-operation, I hope that we shall rise early and come back late. All hon. Members will then be satisfied.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[17th ALLOTTED DAY]—considered

Orders of the Day — OVERSEAS STUDENTS (FEES)

Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister. I have received far more names from hon. Members who would like to participate in the debate than I can call. That also applies to the debate that will follow at 7 o'clock.

Mr. Neil Kinnock: I beg to move,
That this House deplores this year's increases in overseas students' fees to the highest level in the world, which penalise poorer students and poorer countries, including those of the Commonwealth, damage British institutions of further and higher education and threaten Britain's long-term economic and cultural relations with other countries.
The Opposition have the enormous asset of having received a great deal of information from every conceivable source, institution and interest group. They are concerned about the Government's decision to raise the fees of overseas students to full-cost levels. We have at our disposal two excellent Select Committee reports. The Sub-Committees were chaired by my hon. Friends the Members for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) and Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara). I hope that the House will recognise that this short debate is not a replacement or an acceptable alternative to thorough discussion. An issue such as this, which has been reported in Select Committee reports, fully deserves thorough debate.
It is apparent that the policy has not a single friend. We hear nothing but continual criticisms—some extremely bitter and loud—of the Government's policy from the Royal Commonwealth Society and the British Council to the Association of Navigation Schools, from the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals of the United Kingdom Universities and the Committee of Directors of Polytechnics to every university, polytechnic and college of higher or further education, every educaton trade union and every students' union. Disagreement with the Government's policy is not limited to

those sources. We have also heard criticisms from Conservative students, just as we have heard them, in a courageous and direct form, from Conservative Back Benchers.
A few months ago the Secretary of State described this protest—despite the fact that it is universal, erudite, insistent and well argued—as unnecessarily shrill. Perhaps he would extend that description to the grave and decorous tones adopted by high commissioners, ambassadors and others who speak for their nations, including those of the Commonwealth. Whether those criticisms come from the students' unions of colleges of education, foreign embassies or high commissions, they have received the same treatment from the Secretary of State and other Ministers. Their arguments and needs have been rejected.
The reason for the barrage of complaint and criticism is obvious. The Government are wrong to raise fees. The amount by which they have raised them is too great. The pace at which the Government propose to carry out the increases is too quick. As the Select Committee and everyone else have observed, the decision was taken in panic, confusion and ignorance. It shows a lack of consultation and communication with the bodies involved that would make the average dictator blush. Some of those in responsible positions who are not given to exaggeration have accused the Government of barbarism and of the " taint " of racialism. I acquit the Government of such motivations. I do not believe that there was malice aforethought. I do not think that there was aforethought of any description. As the Select Committee stated, the Government have carried out an emergency cost-cutting exercise. It is a blind, arbitrary, wasteful, clumsy, destructive action which shows—to borrow a phrase from the Brandt report—a " bloodless abstraction " in the Government's approach.
The policy is not only bloodless; it is also heartless and brainless. It is brainless because no account has been taken of the immediate consequences for British students, British institutions of higher education or trade, political and cultural relations between Britain and the rest of the world. It is heartless because it discriminates harshly against the


poorest in our world. It imposes huge increases on students who are already in Britain on non-advanced courses. Such students may be hoping to go on to higher education. It is a cynical and careless breach of faith with those throughout the world, especially in the Commonwealth, who look to Britain for educational succour and opportunity. However, that is not surprising. The Government's international posture is characterised by imperial measures of generosity to the rich and powerful—whether the United States of America, the EEC or the OPEC nations—and by mean-minded parsimony towards the weak and poor. That mean-minded parsimony may take the form of cuts in overseas aid or full-cost fees for students from overseas.
When the Select Committee was chaired by the Minister for Overseas Development in 1973, he warned that Governments were in great danger of getting their figures wrong and of coming to the wrong conclusions. That view has been reaffirmed by more recent Select Committees. The difference is that the Government have taken important and dramatic action that is based on inaccurate figures in respect of the total net expenditure that we make on overseas students. The cash value of research undertaken by overseas students in British institutions has been entirely ignored. The argument that students bring in foreign exchange—in the form of their own or other currencies—to the value of scores of millions of pounds has been rejected.
There is another miscalculation that is more important. The Government are using the wrong figures as regards the individual cost of overseas students. The Government have calculated their so-called savings on the basis of average costs. As repeated testimony has made clear, that consists of dividing the total cost of higher education by the number of overseas students here and coming up, in the most clumsy and arbitrary form, with a figure that bears little relationship to reality.
Any calculation of what overseas students cost this country should at least be on marginal costs. Those students are, as the Government themselves argue, marginal to the general provision. Marginal costs are a much more adequate

means of accounting in these matters and they are between one-half and two-thirds of average costs. If the calculation had been done on that basis, we should have come up with a much lower bill. That might not have suited the Government's purposes, but it would have served the cause of honesty and accuracy in public accounting.
The Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson), has described the campaign to change the basis of cost calculation from average costs to marginal costs as special pleading and he has refused to acknowledge that a change needs to be made. The hon. Gentleman has commented in his usual elegant and erudite fashion on whether such changes should be made and whether the Government's policy should be halted and a different attitude adopted and different stratagems undertaken. In January, he told The Times Educational Supplement: c. 1695.
 We shan't make the savings we planned if we start mucking about.
The trouble is that there has been too much mucking about already.
The Government's policy shows a fearsome combination of innumeracy, insularity and insensitivity to the needs of this country and our higher education and the needs of students from many other parts of the world. The consequence of the Government's incompetence and arbitrariness is shocking. We live in a country where from September the highest higher education fees in the world will be payable.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Mark Carlisle): That is not true.

Mr. Kinnock: The figures that I have come from the Secretary of State's Department. They were prepared in readiness for questions in the Select Committees. If they are not true from me, they are not true from his Department.
Annual university fees in this country will be £2,000 for an arts course, £3,000 for a science course and £5,000 for a medical course. In many cases, the fees in polytechnics will be even higher. The House should compare those figures with the fact that no European country except Belgium will charge higher fees than us and no other European country


charges more than nominal amounts. Some charge nothing to higher education students.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Kinnock: No, I am sorry; we are short of time. I shall be interested to hear the hon. Lady's contribution if she is able to take part in the debate.
We ought also to make a comparison between our student fees and the Ivy League fees chargeable in American universities, where the highest fee payable is £2,400 a year for any course.

Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones: For how many years?

Mr. Kinnock: Whether it is two, three or four years, the fact remains that at that rate the total cost will still be less than a three-year course at £3,000 a year in this country. It will still be less even if the student has had to take foundation courses in America or in this country or has taken preparatory courses, GCE A-level, the Ordinary National Diploma or any comparable qualification in order to prepare himself for his higher education course. If the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones) is worried about the comparisons, I hope that he will refer to the Department of Education and Science and, in the time for reflection that he has before 7 o'clock, will change his mind and vote with us. In Canada and Australia, the figures are £1,000 a year for three-year courses in comparable institutions. Our fees are double, treble or five times those amounts.
The irony of the higher cost fees stratagem is that, while the Prime Minister is rattling her sword against the Red menace that allegedly threatens us in every continent, the Secretary of State for Education and Science is acting as the registrar for the Patrice Lumumba university in Moscow. Overseas students, repelled by higher fees and by the attitude behind them, will be looking elsewhere. They may go to the United States or to France because of the inducements there, but they are more likely than ever before to be attracted by the inducements offered by Iron Curtain countries and by China.
There is a major desertion of our interests, strategically, culturally and morally,

in the Government's policy. The effect on institutions in this country will be extremely serious. I have received a letter from the secretary general of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, Mr. Geoffrey Caston.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: What date?

Mr., Kinnock: The letter is dated 30 May 1980 and says:
The financial effects of this policy threaten to be devastating for some institutions: for example, over the next three years the University of London will have to replace 18 per cent of its income, the University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology 33 per cent. and Birmingham 15 per cent.".
As UMIST relies for 33 per cent. of its income on the provision that it makes for overseas students, only a marginal adjustment is needed in the demand for those places to set the whole of UMIST's finances awry and to ruin the possibilities and provision for British students who will be seeking to take advantage of the high standard of education available there.
There are several such instances. We have had shoals of letters for every university, polytechnic and comparable institution in this country, as well as from organisations representing the heads of those institutions and the teachers in them. The evidence is unanimous and is always the same. The Government's policy, in combination with the cuts that are being inflicted on universities, is causing the strong possibility that courses will be jeopardised, whole departments menaced and the opportunities of British students cancelled and ruined because of the stupidity and blindness of the policy.
The Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals has said:
 any reduction of income on this scale "—
that is, the scale anticipated as a result of the Government's policy—
 must adversely affect the provision for home students.
It is ironic that the shortage subjects—sciences, technology and mathematics—where overseas students constitute a high proportion of the total are the very courses that are in jeopardy. Those are the courses that we need to provide for our own students for the general purposes of industry, technology and education. The Government weep at the shortage of teachers in those subjects, but they are


conniving at a policy which will exacerbate that shortage.
A total of 49 per cent. of all postgraduates in medicine, dentistry and health in this country are overseas students. Of postgraduate students in engineering and technology, 57 per cent. are from overseas. In agriculture, forestry and veterinary science the figure is 54·4 per cent. and in science it is 34·5 per cent. We cannot have a policy that so directly jeopardises the continuity of education for those people and their opportunity for education at postgraduate level. We cannot tolerate a situation in which a substantial part of postgraduate study in this country, which is of immense value to us and to the world, can be ruined by the consequences of the full-cost fees policy.
I acquit the Secretary of State on some grounds, because I do not think that he understands the problem. In January he said at the Millbank Club in Leicester:
 Apart from the running costs "—
of the universities—
 I invite you to consider the capital costs involved. These costs are not covered in the full-cost fee and to this extent overseas students will still be handsomely subsidised.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman gave much the same opinion to the Committee chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West. The Secretary of State does not seem to understand that that is what the argument is about.
There will be a reduction in revenue resulting from the decrease in intake of overseas students and a need to replace that revenue, in addition to the effects of university cuts, yet the universities and other institutions still have to meet the same capital and recurrent costs. That is why they are making a fuss. They still have to pay their bills. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is ensuring that they will have fewer resources to meet those bills. That is the economic case.
In addition to loss of foreign exchange, there is the question of loss of economic contacts. It is difficult to prove, but many companies will testify that they earnestly believe that the contacts developed through education and training in this country are of value to trade. Specific evidence is available from Leicester polytechnic which was presented to the

Select Committee, Sunderland polytechnic, the University of London and other comparable institutions which demonstrates that the links of language, custom and relationships forged through education and training are of value to this country. The Government have given the Chinese Government undertakings with regard to education. What is the point of those if no trade benefit will result? Even if we could not demonstrate tangible benefits, there is certainly no loss in having large numbers of overseas students studying in this country.
If the right hon. and learned Gentleman and others do not believe the benefits to trade, let them watch what the French do to promote opportunities in their institutions. The Czechs, Bulgarians. Poles and other nationalities will have the common sense to know that short-term cuts to save a peanut of finance should not stand in the way of their relations with the remainder of the world.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: A peanut?

Mr. Kinnock: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman makes appropriate reductions in terms of foreign exchange earnings and the value of research to our economy, he will find that the figure is considerably less than the £102 million which I believe he is now prepared to admit.
The Secretary of State has partially recognised such arguments. He has provided £5 million extra for postgraduate students. That sum will help about 1,500 out of the 9,000 postgraduate overseas students in this country and is left to the University Grants Committee to administer. Interesting comments, some of which are printable, have been made by the UGC and vice-chancellors and principals. One from the CVCP is:
 we do not believe that this can ever fully alleviate the effects of the new policy and we foresee a number of complications over its administration.
If the UGC is to play Red Cross to the universities, who will play St. John's Ambulance to the polytechnics and other institutions of higher education? The answer is " No one ".
The Under-Secretary of State should understand the problems. He said last week that the polytechnics should have a distinctive role. He is right. However,


distinctiveness when it means dependence on the provision of courses in science, technology and related subjects is becoming a source of insecurity. The result of the Government's policy is to reduce scope and distinctiveness. Such institutions cannot act like merchant adventurers and sell their wares throughout the world. The possibility of increasing distinctiveness is remote and has been reduced by this Government's policies, because such institutions will be reluctant to take the risks that will now arise from specialisation.
The Government have been educationally destructive and economically ignorant and incoherent, and their morals with regard to this policy are those of a scorpion. They are betraying those who have no resources of their own. For example, Cyprus has been discouraged over the years from developing a higher education capacity, but Cyprus is not exempt from full-cost fees. The right hon. and learned Gentleman told me this week that, if Cypriot and Maltese students were given home student status, by 1983 the cost in a full year of operation would be £2 million. However, the Government are prepared to spend £3·6 million on EEC students.
I am not against those students, nor are the Commonwealth high commissioners, who rightly feel a sense of outrage. We object to the fact that students from rich countries are being protected from full-cost fees and those from poor countries and countries which have been actively discouraged from developing their own higher education facilities are being penalised. The Commonwealth relationship is in shreds because of Government policies, including this salutary and cynical action. It is a betrayal of our interests to discriminate against Commonwealth students and in favour of EEC students

Mr. Mark Carlisle: What provision did the Labour Government make for Cypriot students when they brought in the policy of differential fees?

Mr. Kinnock: The policies of differential fees and full-cost fees are entirely different. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not understand that, he does not understand his policy. There is a different motivation, pace, incidence and system of alleviation. I hope that

proper attention will be given to the differences when we debate the Select Committee reports. I offer no excuses or alibis. Our policy did not provoke the vehement outrage that this Government's policy has provoked.
We should leave the last word on the policy of raising fees for students to the man who said that the increases were mean-minded and selfish, and who went on to say:
 it is right that at a time of economic crisis, when all in Britain are having to make sacrifices, overseas students should carry their part of the burden. But it must be a fair part and not a discriminatory one.
That was said in 1977 by the Leader of the House.
The Government's policy is also a betrayal of the 20,000 non-advanced students who came to this country in 1978 and who will experience a 500 per cent. increase in their higher education fees.
There will be a change in the student profile. We will be a higher educational Hilton. Middle East students will come to the country without difficulty, but the take-up of places by poorer students will continue to drop. Since 1975 there has been a 32 per cent. increase in the number of students coming from the Middle East and a decrease of 23 per cent. in the number of students coming from the poorest countries. The process is now worsened. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is concerned about those figures, he can reverse the trend by changing his policy.
In the manner of the decision and the defence of it, there is no remaining vestige of the avuncular traditions of colonialism in the Conservative Party, with a few honourable exceptions. There is not even the cynical economic self-interest for which the Conservative Party is well known or the devious diplomatic cunning for which certain eminent and prestigious individuals in the Government are also well known.
I plead with the right hon. and learned Gentleman to abandon this clumsy, arbitrary, ill-advised and misinformed policy, freeze it, review it and rationalise it in favour of poor students from poor countries and poor students from rich countries in descending order, to the point where he can acknowledge that, on the basis of merit, students from anywhere


in the world can be admitted to this country. Let us have a policy which meets needs and rewards talents and which fulfils our national duty to the world and our duty to our own interests.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Mark Carlisle): I beg to move, to leave out from " House " to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
 welcomes the presence of overseas students, including those financed from the aid programme, at British institutions of further and higher education but agrees that as a general rule courses should be paid for on an economic cost basis.
I welcome the opportunity of the debate, and I welcome also the opportunity to place on record the reasons for the Government's decision. The hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) began by saying that many in the university world have criticised the Government's decision. I accept that they have. The hon. Gentleman quoted me as saying that I considered their criticism to have been unnecessarily shrill. I do not withdraw from that. Having listened to the hon. Gentleman today, I believe that his criticisms have been unnecessarily shrill. I hope to prove why that is so. When listening to some of the adjectives that rolled off the hon. Gentleman's tongue, it occurred to me that, as ever, his rhetoric is never inhibited by any regard for the facts or the history of the matter under debate.
As the hon. Gentleman said, we have recently received two reports from Select Committees. The Committees were chaired by Labour Members. We are studying the recommendations in both reports. The Government will respond to the reports as soon as possible. This is not the day on which to go into the contents of the reports, as the hon. Gentleman said. I wish, like him, to limit my remarks to the motion and the amendment.
I shall start by reiterating certain facts. The hon. Gentleman agreed that there was nothing especially new in the proposal of full-cost fees for overseas students. As he said, it was one of the proposals advanced by the Expenditure Committee as long ago as 1973.

Mr. Christopher Price: Be fair. Get the facts right.

Mr. Carlisle: I am fully aware of the Expenditure Committee's proposals, and I shall deal with them.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Carlisle: Not at this moment, no.
Differential fees have been a fact of life since their introduction by a Labour Government as long ago as 1966.

Mr. William van Straubenzee: Hear, hear.

Mr. Carlisle: The growing number of overseas students in this country and the cost implications for the British taxpayer have been matters of concern during the intervening years for spokesmen of Governments of both political parties. I shall remind the House how the numbers have increased.
At the end of 1966 the then Secretary of State for Education and Science, the late Mr. Crosland, announced the introduction of differential fees. In 1967–68 there were 31,000 students from overseas in all forms of further and higher education in Britain. That figure grew slowly over the next four years until in 1971–72 it had arrived at 39,000. Five years later it had risen to 75,000. By 1978–79 it had increased to 86,000. In our universities alone we have about 36,500 overseas students—about 12 per cent. of the student population, compared with 5 per cent. of that population when differential fees were introduced.

Mr. Frank Hooley: A bad fact.

Mr. Carlisle: It is considered to be a bad fact by the Government.

Mr. Hooley: Mr. Hooley rose——

Mr. Carlisle: Like the hon. Member for Bedwellty, I do not propose to give way, because of pressure of time. The previous Labour Government imposed a diminishing quota from 1976 onwards.
The increase in the number of students coming from overseas to Britain is acceptable and welcome. It would be acceptable to Britain generally, save for one fact—the increasing cost to the British taxpayer.
I remind the House of the cost involved. As a result of the totally arbitrary and open-ended nature of the subsidy, that was being provided, the cost of the policy to the taxpayer through the education budget was £127 million in 1978–79, about £102 million of which was in advanced education. That was a totally arbitrary and totally open-ended subsidy that was provided irrespective of a student's country of origin. It was given to about 86,000 students, about one-quarter of whom came from countries that had a higher per capita income than our own. Many of the remaining overseas students came from rich families within poorer countries.
The hon. Member for Bedwellty said that my proposals were arbitrary and unfair. They are nothing in comparison with the way in which the picture has changed over the past 10 years. The way in which the subsidy has grown has had no relationship to the needs of the students or the countries from which they come. That is unfair.

Mr. Hooley: Mr. Hooley rose——

Mr. Carlisle: I am dealing with the present system, which the hon. Member for Bedwellty has commended. It is a system that has imposed an unfair burden on the British taxpayer. As I have reminded the House, the previous Government attempted to deal with the problem by imposing a diminishing quota on the number of students allowed to come to Britain from other parts of the world. In 1976 they announced their intention by 1981–82 to return to the number of overseas students in Britain in 1975–76—in other words a reduction from 83,000 to 66,000.
It appears that the previous Labour Government, of which the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) was a member, considered the growth of the overseas student population to that level to be unacceptable. The previous Government's policy has not worked. Instead of a reduction from 83,000 to 66,000, the figures have continued to increase. In our universities there are now 5,000 more students than the target set by the previous Labour Government for overseas students or the number that they provided for in the recurrent grant. They are in our universities and are paid

for at the cost of 5,000 fewer home students.

Mr. Hooley: Nonsense.

Mr. Carlisle: There are 5,000 fewer home students——

Mr. Hooley: Mr. Hooley rose——

Mr. Barry Sheerman: Mr. Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield, East) rose——

Mr. McNamara: Mr. McNamara rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant God-man Irvine): Order. Only one hon. Member can occupy the Floor at any one time.

Mr. Carlisle: There are 5,000 more overseas students in our universities than the target set by the previous Labour Government and for which provision was made. There are 5,000 fewer home students than the target for which that Gov-ment had made provision. Faced with that situation, faced with the need to reduce public expenditure and faced also with the need to provide a situation in which we begin to live within our means, I believe that we were right, like previous Labour Governments, to look at the whole issue of overseas students.
I have set out the background to the situation that faced us on taking office. We announced our policy of moving to full-cost fees. The hon. Member for Bedwellty, in his motion, deplores the increase. I wish to make it clear that we are looking for savings in the cost of overseas students' fees over the next three years amounting to nearly £100 million. It is about £90 million a year in the third year. Those, like the Opposition, who criticise the decision should say where they would make similar savings instead.
Accepting the need to make savings, I believe that they are achieved better by this means than by pursuing the alternative of a 10 per cent. cut in the recurrent grant to universities. That would have reduced the opportunities for students in universities by 10 per cent., without any chance of the universities recovering the money. An indiscriminate subsidy of students from overseas not only helps, as the hon. Gentleman wishes, poor students from poorer countries but helps, to the same extent, students from rich


countries, or students from rich families in poorer countries.
I accept that there are advantages—cultural, trade and economic—to this country in having students from abroad in our universities. That is why I have stated that I welcome the fact that we have them in our universities. But the attempt by the hon. Gentleman to quantify such advantage is extremely difficult and unconvincing. The cost of our present system to the education budget is both quantifiable and indisputable in its effect.
The motion refers to the high cost of fees in world terms and the damage that the hon. Gentleman believes these fees will do to our universities and other institutions—presumably on the basis that the Government's action will price this country out of the market and that the numbers will drop dramatically. I cannot accept that. I believe that the three-year undergraduate degree in an English university will remain an extremely good buy and extremely good value for anyone coming from overseas.
The hon. Gentleman referred to fees in other universities. He referred, for example, to fees in the United States, it must be remembered that the cost of an overseas student is not represented only by the cost of the fees. It is the cost of the whole period of his university education that matters. Our undergraduate courses are for three years, compared to four years, usually, in America and to five, six or seven years on the Continent. The rate of success is far higher in our universities than in equivalent universities in other parts of the world. Our student-lecturer ratio is far lower in this country than it is throughout the universities of Europe. Such factors, I believe, mean that those coming from abroad will continue to recognise the value of a degree in this country.
I accept that it is too early to state with certainty the number of students who will come to this country in October. We cannot know the figure with certainty until October. That is why I have repeatedly said that we shall watch the situation carefully and monitor the effects of the announcement. By introducing the policy in stages over a three-year period, we shall spread its impact. To the extent

that the hon. Gentleman is proved right, in that a need arises to adjust the policy as a result of falling numbers, we shall have a longer period in which to act.
Despite the comments of the hon. Gentleman and the shrill allegations that have been made, I can tell the House that the signs at. this moment—I can put it no higher—are that the numbers are standing up very much better than our critics forecast. The hon. Gentleman makes snide remarks from a sedentary position.

Mr. Kinnock: They are not snide.

Mr. Carlisle: I say to the hon. Gentleman that there was nothing in the policy that we inherited that discriminated in favour of poor countries, poor families or poor students.

Dame Judith Hart: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has quoted 1976. He was, apparently, by convention, precluded from the discussions within the Labour Government in 1978 and 1979. He is therefore not aware that we were embarking on a consultative document, to be produced this year or next year. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is not allowed to quote 1976 policy. We were aiming at a fair system, to be administered by the British Council, to cover many of the points that he has outlined.

Mr. Carlisle: I am sorry that the electorate lost us the opportunity of seeing that great document. We are aware only of the published expenditure proposals, which assumed a reduction to 66,000 from a figure of 83,000 when introduced. Nowhere does there appear any published document that justifies Opposition Members implying that their proposals, under a diminishing quota, would somehow identify the poorer child from the poorer country as the hon. Member for Bedwellty continually tried to suggest.

Dame Judith Hart: Dame Judith Hart rose——

Mr. Carlisle: I am sorry I am not trying to be discourteous to the right hon. Lady. She knows that I give way a great deal, and she will have an opportunity to wind up the debate. Many hon. Members wish to speak.
I was saying that numbers were standing up better than our critics had forecast. The latest UCCA returns for undergraduates show that the number of applications by the end of March was 12 per cent. down on last year, when, it should be remembered, there were four applications for every place achieved. What may be even more relevant is that the number of applications to March this year is over 4,000 greater than the total number of applications for 1975–76, to which level the previous Labour Government were hoping the figures would return for the current year. The article in The Times of the day before yesterday shows that the numbers coming for postgraduate courses appear to be standing up very well. I realise that we can make only predictions and that we shall not know for certain until October. That is why we shall monitor the situation.
I realise that this has created an air of uncertainty for those involved in universities and other institutions. It is because of that uncertainty and the different effects that our decision may have on different courses at different universities, particularly at postgraduate level, as the hon. Member for Bedwellty mentioned, that we have specifically provided an additional £5 million through the University Grants Comittee for it to distribute as it sees fit. The aim is to ensure that institutions with programmes of postgraduate work of particular importance to home students do not suffer.
The motion refers, secondly, to the policy of providing for poorer students from poorer countries. I ask the House to reflect seriously on that. The fact is that we never were getting the poorer students from the poorer countries. The fee is only one element in the cost incurred by a student on his visit here, which include as a much greater part the cost of maintenance and the cost of travel.
Therefore, we must keep in perspective the effect on students from the poorer countries mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. We must bear in mind the real effects of the alteration that we are proposing on those who come either as individuals or under schemes of sponsorship by their own Governments or otherwise. Doubling, or, in certain cases, considerably more than doubling, the fee element of that student's costs is totally

different from doubling the cost of that student coming to this country.

Mr. Kinnock: Is the Secretary of State aware that the British Council has recently produced figures to show that the average cost of studying in Britain will rise for higher education students from £3,250 in 1980 to £4,800 in 1981 and that half of that is accounted for by the increase in full-cost fees? If the right hon. and learned Gentleman shares my concern that we are getting an unfortunate and regrettable profile of foreign students, will he take the opportunity to review his policy and see that it is used to favour poor students from the poor countries?

Mr. Carlisle: The hon. Gentleman confirms what I have said. Obviously there is some impact, but, doing a quick calculation, I think that he was saying that about one-sixth of the cost will be affected by the decision that we have made. It is therefore wrong to say, as some people do, that because we are doubling the fee we are doubling the cost and making it doubly difficult for students to come to this country.
For the reasons which both the hon. Gentleman and I have expressed, not only do we wish to see students coming to this country but we wish to do what we feel we can reasonably afford to assist them in coming. We want to give the assistance where we can to those indentified individually rather than on an indiscriminate basis. That is why, as well as announcing our decision on high full-cost fees, we announced for postgraduate research students a bursary system to cover some 500 such students a year—research students of high calibre—and when that is fully operational by 1982–83 we shall be giving support to about 17 per cent. of the present number of postgraduate research students.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the EEC. We have agreed that EEC students should be charged home fees. The reasons are simple and threefold: first, we are demonstrating our acceptance of the principle of student mobility within the EEC. Secondly, a draft resolution has already been tabled which will require individual countries to agree to similar fees being charged throughout Europe. Thirdly, as the hon. Gentleman


fails to realise, we are operating on a reciprocal basis with Europe. It is the one area of the world that has more of our students than we have of theirs.
The motion refers specifically to the Commonwealth. I realise that representations have been made from other countries and that one is under pressure to make further exceptions, but there is a difficulty about the number of exceptions that one can make. To exempt, as the motion suggests, the whole of the Commonwealth would mean exempting immediately 40,000 of the students who are here and reducing by over 50 per cent. the sorts of savings that can be made. One cannot seriously contemplate that as being consistent with a policy of charging overseas students full-cost fees. One cannot immediately cut the savings by half before even beginning to consider the position of poorer students from countries other than those in the Commonwealth. We shall continue to support, through the aid programme, a number of students from developing countries.
As a country, we surely wish to welcome those who will come. I believe strongly that the universities still have an attractive asset. I welcome the approach of those universities which, in recent days, have seen this as an opportunity to encourage more students from overseas to come here, freed from the shackles of the diminishing quota with which they were faced.

Mr. Paul Dean: My right hon. and learned Friend referred to a problem with the Commonwealth. I do not find it easy to support the Government on this matter. Will my right hon. and learned Friend therefore give an assurance that he will pay special attention to countries, such as Cyprus, which have particular internal difficulties and a long tradition of sending students here for higher education?

Mr. Carlisle: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. Cyprus has made representations to us, and they are being considered. The difficulty is the one that I tried to explain. It is difficult to know where to draw the line in establishing differentials. We have helped individual students more through overseas aid than by indiscriminate subsidy across the board.
I believe that the motion is, frankly, bogus. To judge from the speech of the hon. Member for Bedwellty and from his sedentary comments during my speech, he appears to be arguing the principle of free entry by all to our institutions irrespective of their background and regardless of the cost to the British taxpayer. The House might be forgiven if, while listening to the hon. Gentleman, it forgot for a moment the history of his party when in Government. It was his Government who were responsible for the introduction of the principle of differential fees which discriminated against students from overseas. It was they who, in 1976, announced steps aimed at limiting the number coming here.
Let me remind the hon. Member for Bedwellty of the words of the then Secretary of State for Education and Science, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley):
 we cannot accept the continued rapid growth in the number of overseas students coming to our institutions ".
In the following year, having announced the reducing quota, he sent a strengthened request to the universities, saying that it was justified in the interests of containing public expenditure and working within the limited educational resources. I believe that that argument is justified. I believe also that the motion put down by the hon. Gentleman is bogus, and I ask the House to reject it and to support the amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I should tell the House that 15 right hon. and hon. Members wish to be accommodated between now and 7 pm, when, I understand, it is hoped that this debate will be brought to a conclusion. Brevity, therefore, will be appreciated.

5 pm

Mr. David Ennals: I shall attempt to be brief. I think that we have just heard a pathetically thin and unconvincing reply by the Secretary of State for Education and Science largely, I think, because he does not believe in his own case. That is the kindest interpretation that I can put on his speech.
The Secretary of State failed absolutely to answer, or respond to, the reports of the two Select Committees. He spoke as if neither of those reports had been


published and concentrated almost entirely on cost, without looking at the balancing benefit which this country gets. I speak largely from experience as a Foreign Office Minister and as a Secretary of State for Social Services. I have also had a great many representations from my constituents at the University of East Anglia and Norwich city college.
I believe that the Secretary of State's decision was taken without proper consultation with other Government Departments. It is perfectly clear from the Select Committee report that there was no proper consultation with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the ODA. The decision was taken without consultation with the Commonwealth countries themselves and there was no effective consultation with the UGC or the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals. I believe that this will have a profound effect—perhaps an irreversible effect—on our relations with Third world countries and especially with Commonwealth countries.
In many cases, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) said, overseas students may be able to go elsewhere. Some will go to the United States, some to the Soviet Union, some to France and Germany, but some may lose the opportunity of going overseas for travel and language studies. The real problem for us is that for most of them the link with Britain will be lost. I believe that that will be of profound cultural and political as well as economic significance to our country.
My experience suggests that the effect of the Government's decision on exports and the balance of payments over the years could be very serious. For example, there are doctors in the Middle East, Africa and Asia who received their medical training in Britain. They are well acquainted with British equipment and the British Health Service. That has stood us in good stead in the work of promoting exports of medical equipment. That will be lost if we have a restricted flow of people. I do not mean simply medical students. I include engineers as well, because the restriction will probably apply even more acutely to engineering students.
The facilities provided for students from overseas to receive their training here are quite the most effective form of overseas aid that exists. I note that the Minister for

Overseas Development will be speaking in the debate. I should like to hear his comments, because my experience suggests that of all the forms of overseas aid nothing is more important than the assistance that we give to enable students from all over the world, but especially from the Third world, to come to Britain.
I quote from paragraph 21 of the report of the Select Committee, of which my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) was Chairman. It said that
 In eighty countries—in Asia and Latin America (both commercially significant areas) and in the Caribbean (of crucial geo-political importance)—the number of students coming to the UK on ODA financed scholarships is to be sharply curtailed. Given a concurrence of British interest and acceptability amongst recipients it seems to us wrong that even within the context of a contracting aid budget the Government should be planning to reduce the number of overseas students that it finances by such a disproportionately large number. We believe that this is one of the most cost-effective and politically constructive forms of aid that this country can offer the developing countries.
The report went on to say:
 We find it hard to interpret a policy that emphasises in its aid programme the need to build up the productive structure of the developing countries through the sale of British capital goods; and yet in its educational arrangements makes it increasingly difficult for nationals of potential importing countries to become acquainted with the capital goods concerned or able to operate them efficiently.
I believe that those arguments are overwhelming. I also believe that the loss which will result from the decision taken by the Secretary of State—unless he is prepared to modify or review it—will be a loss for this country not just for next year but for the next generation, because we shall not have that generation of students coming to Britain.
Of course, it is true that there will be no problem with the EEC. Students from Europe will be treated as home students for the purpose of determining the level of fees to be paid. Once again, the Select Committee drew attention to that. It said:
 Her Majesty's Government will continue to subsidise EEC students, among the richest in the world, yet refuses to modify its fees policy in favour of the poorest and least privileged. The House may well ask whether such a situation will make it any easier to convince the developing countries in general and those of the Commonwealth in particular of British good faith in the various fora of the North-South dialogue.


That is a question put by the Select Committee to this House. The Secretary of State did not touch on it at all. It was as if he had not bothered to read the report of the all-party Select Committee.
I wish to raise a specific question with the Secretary of State and I hope that it will be answered later in the debate. The question is concerned particularly with refugees. Admittedly, only a small proportion of the overseas students who come here are refugees, but I believe that we have a special responsibility for them. The Secretary of State will know that there have been strong representations from the National Union of Students and World University Service on this matter. This was an issue on which the Education, Science and Arts Select Committee made recommendations. It said at paragraph 47:
 Particular attention should be paid to the special problems of refugee students.
The Select Committee added:
 There is a need to relieve acute financial distress, particularly of refugee students admitted to Britain.
They are, after all, only 1 per cent. of total overseas students.
The Secretary of State will also know that the Standing Conference on Refugees, of which I am a member, has put forward four proposals and I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House who are involved in the all-party refugee group will support them. I summarise those proposals in four sentences from a letter to me from the conference.
First,
Those who have been given asylum in the UK should have the same right to pay the ' home ' fees as any British student.
It seems to me absolutely monstrous that we should have a different rate of fees, for instance, for the Vietnamese refugees whom we have totally accepted as having a full right to come to this country and whom we wish to see settle down as British citizens. Somehow or other, we discriminate against them as if they were " foreigners ".
Secondly, the letter goes on:
 Refugee students should be allowed maintenance grants immediately on arrival in the UK. They have no place of ' ordinary residence ' "——
except where they are, here in Britain——

 so the three year residence qualification cannot apply.
Thirdly, it says:
 There should be a special bursary fund for overseas students in financial need—particularly of refugee students admitted to Britain for study.
Fourthly, the letter says:
 The Government should establish a consistent policy for educational support for all refugees whatever their national origin.
I hope that the Minister of State will reply to this question of refugees and I hope that the Secretary of State will take note of all the pressures. After all, he must recognise that in speaking today he has spoken with very little support. He may have some support in the Lobby tonight, but I believe that there will be many Conservative Members who will go into the Lobby with very heavy hearts. People throughout the country feel that this is a pretty despicable act which goes against the long-term interests of our country, our Commonwealth and our standing in the world.

Mr. Tim Brinton: I am a member of the Select Committee and I put my name to the interim report on overseas students' fees. We are not discussing that in detail today, but my name is on the report because I believe that there is not enough consultation to quell the disquiet in academic institutions. It is an anomaly to give EEC students an advantage over poorer students from other countries.
There is a need for a more definitive statement on policy on overseas students. I should like to know how many students in the various tiers of education, including postgraduate and undergraduate, the Minister thinks should be let into the country. What areas does he believe that they should be in?
My right hon. and learned Friend has encouraged the entrepreneurial approach, with institutions going out and finding their customers or consumers. Let that be clear. Having put my name to the interim report on overseas students' fees, I must make it clear that I welcomed cordially the advent of full-cost fees. It was a right decision. It was a courageous decision which was missed by Governments for the past 10 years while they talked about it and slowly put up fees. I am in good company. British taxpayers will


at last begin to feel that the Government are doing what they want and getting to grips with how their money is spent. Under the old system, with 12 per cent. of all students being subsidised, nobody knew how much was being spent, why it was being spent or what was the advantage to the British people,
We have heard about advantages in trade, commerce and culture. Let us find out how much we are paying for that and whether it is really worth it. M we can transfer help in the form of bursaries, for example, to the right administering Departments and away from the Department of Education and Science we shall resolve the problem and we shall be able to see exactly what we are doing with taxpayers' money.
The Opposition motion refers to damage to
 British institutions of further and higher education ".
The decision to move to full-cost fees and the immense rethink by all those involved in higher education will produce tangible advantages. It will make people ask questions. They will ask whether the courses that they offer to students are cost-effective. More important, they will ask whether they are actually needed. They will ask: how many courses are being run for the benefit of professors and teachers rather than to satisfy student demand? Do we have too many universities? Are we offering the best quality and satisfying the further and higher education needs of our home students?
The Opposition motion refers to threats to economic and cultural relations with other countries. Our economy is threatened by too much internal, often wasteful spending by previous Governments. Blanket subsidies for all overseas students are a prime example. Of course, we welcome overseas students. I am glad to hear that applications have fallen off only little. What proportion of students do we need to sustain cultural relations with other countries? Is 12 per cent. really necessary? Do we really need 12,679 students from Malaysia to preserve cultural relations with that country? Do we need 9,151 students from Iran out of a total of 40,800 from the rest of the world outside the Commonwealth to preserve a cultural link with a country whose culture has descended to pre-Spanish Inquisition levels?
The Opposition motion was conceived in haste by a party in disarray which had to find something to unite it. The motion is born of the inability of Socialism to think in any terms other than the profligate spending of other people's money regardless of the means and needs of the recipients. The motion will perish as we vote with the hearfelt thanks of the British people.

Mr. A. J. Beith: One of the most depressing features of this debate was the Secretary of State's observation to the effect that the Labour Party had not succeeded in directing aid towards students from poor countries and he did not see why he should do so either. The failure to grasp that objective is manifest.
Because time is restricted, I shall summarise the key arguments. Overseas students make a major contribution to our aid for world development. Their presence and learning of skills here is one of the best ways in which we can assist their countries to help themselves. They make a major contribution to promoting future economic links between Britain and the developing world. Upon those links our future, trade depends.
Overseas students make a major contribution to the maintenance of British friendship with the leaders of the developing world. We might in future be more dependent on that than we realise. They are a major factor in the quality and success of existing institutions. Many institutions, particularly those specialising in tropical medicine and Oriental studies, depend for their quality on the presence of substantial numbers of students from the countries specialising in those studies. In any university or institute of higher education a good education depends on a diverse student community. It is important that institutions should contain students from a variety of backgrounds and countries.
I reject the argument that overseas students in British universities keep out home students. Heads of university departments, if unable to admit overseas students, do not take unqualified, inadequate British students to replace them. That is my experience of the universities in which I have taught and studied.


Students are admitted to universities on the basis of their suitability for courses. There is an element of bias in many university departments in that a good home student is often admitted first. However, if there is no good home student and there is a good overseas student, the admission of that overseas student does not keep out a home student.
What worries me most about the Government's policy is that it closes the door on the poor countries but keeps it open for the rich. Some students can afford to pay the fees and could afford even higher fees. Between 1975 and 1978 the number of students from OPEC and Middle East countries increased by 36 per cent. I expect that trend to continue. People from such countries can afford to pay high fees, just as they can afford expensive flats and houses in London. I do not mind their paying full-cost fees, but I resent the way in which Government policy will keep the door open only for them and for students from EEC countries.
The Secretary of State, quite rightly, criticised the fact that previous policy was an open-ended subsidy, not directed towards any group. What is he doing about that? In the absence of any clear reciprocal arrangement with many European countries or any firm EEC commitment, he is making precisely the same open-ended subsidy towards the EEC students who wish to study in Britain. He is ensuring that, whatever their numbers, they will be able to study at the home students' level of fees. Those changes of policy have been carried out without adequate discussion with the Government Departments concerned with overseas and trade affairs. That is one of the messages that have come so clearly from the Select Committee reports.
The Labour Party started the game in 1966, when it introduced differential fees for overseas students. It is the same as prescription charges. If one installs a weapon of that kind, a subsequent Government can use it in ways, and to an extent, that had not been envisaged. It is a great danger. If the previous Government had changed to a system that concentrated heavily upon the groups to which I have referred as most in need, the Tory Government would not have

been able to achieve such drastic changes, because they would have been doing so exclusively at the expense of the people whom it should be British policy to benefit. It would have been a more prudent measure.
Throughout the period of the previous Labour Administration, when the increases were taking place, I argued very strongly that we should switch to a bursary-based system of far wider application. That does not now relieve the Government of the need to devise a wider bursary scheme and transfer at least some of the resources into its operation. What can we do now that the Government have reached this stage? Clearly, they will not return to non-discriminatory fees. The full-cost fees for some students is something that they want to preserve. I do not object to the Government charging full fees to students from certain countries and backgrounds who can afford to pay them.
There are two possible directions in which the Government could change then-disastrous policy. The first would be to charge home-level fees for students from a Lomé convention country. I hope that the Minister will carefully consider that possibility. After all, let us consider what happens when we allow in EEC students at home-level fees. We allow in students from the French dependencies, which are treated as part of metropolitan France. We let them in from Réunion, Guadeloupe and Djibouti. But we do not allow them in from comparable British Commonwealth countries with exactly the same circumstances and problems but which we do not treat as part of Britain. Through the Lomé convention and its pattern of arrangements, the EEC has tried to devise a means to give the benefits of EEC membership and access to EEC opportunities to poor countries that were previously associated with members of the EEC. I hope that the Government will look at the Lomé grouping as the basis for an alleviation of fees. That is one change that could be made.
Another change is one that I mentioned previously, namely, to widen by a large degree the concept of the bursary, especially to help students from poor countries and, to some extent, poor students and refugee students from a wider range of countries who are denied access to higher education.
All that I have suggested is a vital investment in Britain's future relations with the developing world. I appeal to Conservative Members to understand that, if we do not do that, there are many other countries that will do it—and the Soviet Union is foremost among them. The Prime Minister is quick to remind us, quite rightly, of the existing Soviet threat and the extent to which the Soviet Union has ambitions and adventures throughout the world. We present it with an easy way to undercut Britain and make friends for the future if we do not ensure that those whom it is in our interest to help have access to higher education in Britain. We make a great mistake if we confine that access to those who can afford the fees now proposed.

Mr. David Madel: I welcome this opportunity for a short debate. With my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Mr. Brinton), I am a member of the Select Committee on Education and Science, which produced an interim report on this subject. I wish to direct my few words towards what we said about this problem.
The investigation that we were able to conduct shows the usefulness of the Select Committee procedure in the House. By calling a number of witnesses, including the Secretary of State—who made a useful and helpful contribution and enhanced our discussions—we perform a useful job for Parliament. Although we are at an early stage in the Select Committee process, one thing that we have noted—and which we mention in paragraph 25 of the report—is the question of information and interdepartmental discussions. We said in that paragraph:
 We do not consider that we can fully discharge our responsibilities to Parliament until we have access to more of the information that is available to the DES in formulating its decisions.
I realise that there are difficulties regarding the amount of information that Government Departments can give if they use the argument that national security might be jeopardised, but on this issue it would have helped us if we could have had information about some of the discussions that must have taken place between the various Departments before the decision was made.
I wish to concentrate my remarks on the question how the decision will affect

the science and research courses in Britain. We made mention of that in paragraph 36 of the report, where we drew attention to the fact that
 Since overseas students are strongly clustered in courses in engineering and technology the three institutions especially selected in the 1960s for a high level of funding in science and technology, Imperial College, London, UMIST and Strathclyde University, were said to be at some risk.
During our discussions we were told that the Government were considering an extension of the bursary scheme. As we said later in the report, we hoped that, if any course was at risk, the bursary scheme might be used to ensure that that course did not cease, Mention has already been made of the evidence that we heard from the Leicester polytechnic about the engineering course on knitting, which is of use not only to that town but to the surrounding industries. We hope that when the bursary scheme gets under way, should there be special difficulties in certain courses, it would be used flexibly so that the course might continue. Because of the effort, work and amount of money that Britain must continue to invest in research and development, it is vital that, when the Government are considering how the cost for overseas students and the bursary scheme should continue, this matter should receive the highest priority.
In paragraph 50 we made four points. We referred to a number of non-sponsored overseas students who deserved the possibility of access to a wider bursary fund. In the four points we stressed the need to pursue research in the United Kingdom, the need to maintain courses vital to British industry and commerce, especially in relation to export potential, and the need to relieve acute financial distress, especially of refugee students. Our recommendation states:
We recommend that such a scheme be set up as a matter of urgency and that it be adminstered by a body representing, among others, academic, research, industrial and commercial, overseas development and local government interests, as well as those of the relevant central government departments.
Because of the scientific and research needs of Britain, it should be possible for the Govenrment and industry to get together to create a wider bursary fund, which could be used to ensure that certain vital courses do not suffer as a result of this alteration.
We have been asked to be brief. Those are the only two points that I wish to make. I regret that the Opposition Front Bench did not concentrate more on some of the constructive suggestions in the report, especially our remarks on science and technical courses. The trouble with the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock)—who has a look of injured guilt about him when he talks about the Labour Administration—is that he forgets the way that the previous Labour Administration proceeded.
I hope that we shall have a debate on the report, but debates on Select Committee reports are few and far between. I wish to confine my remarks to the interim report. I draw special attention to the fact that the wider bursary should be used to help refugee students and also to help the research and development of industry in Britain, which is so vital for our economic future.

Mr. Christopher Price: I should like to mention two remarks made by the Secretary of State which, on reflection, he might want to modify. First, he said that the 1972 Expenditure Committee recommended full-cost fees. That Committee was concerned with postgraduate education, whereas these fees apply right across the board into further as well as higher education. On top of that, the Committee recommended a compensating scholarship scheme. Therefore, it recommended not a diminution of expenditure but a different pattern.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: I do not dispute that the Committee recommended that funding for those who needed funding should be given in another way. I said that it supported the principle of full-cost fees and that that was nothing new.

Mr. Price: I felt that the full recommendations of the Expenditure Committee should be put on record. It is important to get them in balance.
The second point made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman has already been alluded to. He indicated that in some way, for every extra overseas student that we have in our institutions, we have one fewer home student. The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed

(Mr. Beith) put that point in context. Having taken pages and pages of evidence, we received no evidence of that fact. If the Secretary of State believes it, he must be the only person who does.
There must be another occasion to discuss these reports in detail. The education report would have been more scathing had we been able to get at the information which the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Madel) told the House we had not been able to obtain. The Select Committee has made a special report to the House about this matter. I quite understand the gagging writ with which the Secretary of State was issued by the Cabinet Office, thereby preventing his telling the Select Committee anything about the interdepartmental consultations. This is a matter of dispute between the Procedure Committee, which has made a recommendation, and the Government. The Select Committee hoped that this matter could be brought to the Floor of the House on a nonparty vote in the way that this kind of thing is normally decided so that it could be resolved, because the Secretary of State said that this was a matter for the House, as opposed to the Government, to decide.
I should like to mention one matter about the foreign affairs aspects of this matter before turning to the Select Committee's recommendations. Cyprus has been mentioned. I fully support the argument put forward by Cyprus. However, I should like to put another aspect to the House. Much has been said about the menace of the Russians in the Indian Ocean. Until recently, almost all students in the island of Mauritius wanting education came to this country. As a result of this decision, the majority of students from the island of Mauritius will now be trained in the Soviet Union.
The Government talk about the military expenditure that is necessary to prevent the Russian threat in the Indian Ocean. No decision could have been more effective in promoting the Soviet cause in the Indian Ocean than this decision on overseas students' fees. If, in five years, Mauritius goes the same way as the Seychelles or starts to move in a direction which makes people frightened of a Soviet takeover, only one Government will be responsible, and that will be this Government.
The Secretary of State appeared to imply that the Government's decision on this occasion was, as it were, not terribly different from the decisions of previous Governments who first created the differential and then increased, or on occasions decreased, that differential over the years. I think that I could take all the members of the Select Committee with me on this point. But the suddenness—that is, the lack of consultation—and the size of this increase puts it in a different category from any previous decision about overseas students' fees.
The Select Committee made a great deal of saying that applications were not all that much down. Again, I think that the Select Committee would agree that the numbers of overseas students in this country are holding up. However, we were distressed to find a paucity of information within the Department of Education and Science on the profile of those overseas students. There is no doubt that if, like Ralph Dahrendorf of the London School of Economics, we went out recruiting United States students of a not very high intellectual calibre for very short courses in this country, we could fill many courses. We might fill all our universities. But that is not the object of the exercise, as far as some of us are concerned, in running a higher education system.
One of the Select Committee's final conclusions was that the Government must come out with a policy and tell the country, the universities and the polytechnics in particular how they think the balance should be drawn between American and oil-rich students who are increasing in numbers in this country and our proper responsibility to help Third world students who are not sponsored by their Governments.
It is all very well to say that the aid budget for sponsored students should cope with part of the problem. We agree that ii should. But there is a case for holding fees for Third world students down to a reasonable level. Many leaders of Third world countries who received their education in Britain received it not as favourite students of the Government of the day but as opponents of the Government of the day. They learnt their policies in this country and are now providing a great contribution

to the Third world by what they are doing.
Although the report was substantially unanimous, there was one issue on which we were divided. It can be read in the report. The majority of the Committee felt that the policy of full-cost fees should stand and be mitigated by a bursary scheme. However, the minority of the Committee felt that it should stick to the Robbins report, which (recommended that fees, with no differential between overseas and home students—the possibility of a differential was never conceived—should be held at about 20 per cent. of full cost. That difference in the Committee is brought out in the report. The assumption was that fees would be held at about 20 per cent. of full cost. One side of the Committee—not the majority—felt that that was right.
We made a number of positive recommendations. I am glad that the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South talked about our bursary scheme. I say no more about that, except that we used the expression " very urgent ". I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman, in responding to the Select Committee's report, will at least say something positive about the scope of the bursary scheme. I do not think that, after this debate, he will refuse the refugee point. It involves a tiny amount of money and is the kind of thing on which any Government would give way. However, I hope that he will be as generous as possible on the bursary scheme.
I should like to mention two other points in the report. The first concerns the Government's decision—a decision by administrative fiat which has received very little publicity—to change the residence qualification to " ordinarily resident " as the qualification for an overseas student. We received evidence that that decision would have a far greater effect on overseas students than anybody realised, particularly in London further education institutions, where there is a very high proportion of overseas students.
We felt that it was unsatisfactory for the Secretary of State simply to tell the Committee that the meaning of the words " ordinarily resident " was for the courts to decide. Perhaps it will be litigated before the courts. It could be two


to three years before the final decision on the meaning of the words is given by the House of Lords. In the past, that has always applied to tax exiles, of whom the Government wanted to make as many as possible ordinarily resident. In the case of overseas students, the Government are trying to make as few people as possible ordinarily resident. In this case, it is incumbent upon the Secretary of State, in responding to our report, to make a clear statement about what he considers to be the meaning of the words " ordinarily resident ", otherwise, people such as admission officers in further education establishments, polytechnics and universities will be put in the position of acting as immigration officers, and that is utterly unreasonable. They need more guidance, and they should be given it.
My final point relates to the words " as a general rule " in the amendment. The final wording of the Government amendment agrees that " as a general rule " courses should be paid on an economic cost basis. The Government had to include those words because they had given in to the EEC. For what it is worth, I believe—other hon. Members may disagree with me—that the EEC decision was perfectly reasonable. I suspect that it involved the package that has recently been announced and getting German support for it. I do not blame the Government for that. Having been a Member of the European Parliament for a year, I know that we have to take such decisions and that we have to give and take a little. It is a perfectly reasonable decision to make if we are wheeling and dealing in that sort of area.
At present, the EEC is making a mass of complicated trading agreements with other countries in which non-discrimination between the EEC and those other countries figures increasingly. The Lomé convention has been mentioned. It includes a non-discrimination agreement covering workers and their families in this country. That may have to be litigated in order to find out whether sandwich course students are entitled to home fees. I am simply asking the Secretary of State to realise that we cannot open the door a little without its being forced open wider and wider.
As other countries which have associations

with the EEC—the ASEAN countries, Cyprus and other countries which send many students to Britain—negotiate their agreements year by year, they will say increasingly that they want non-discrimination on student fees. In the end they will get it, and it would be more graceful and politically intelligent for the Government to make this proposal now than to be forced to give way in a year or two.
I welcome the Government's promise that they will monitor their policy and make a review. I beg them not to let this review drag on and on. Even the Secretary of State would agree that the decision was made in an absurdly hurried way. It was not an education decision. It was a Treasury decision. There seems to have been virtually no consultation, even with the Secretary of State, before it was announced. I hope that the Secretary of State will make an intelligent review of this decision quickly.

Mr. Harry Greenway: The question of the number of overseas students who can properly be accommodated on any course of study has been an issue in education for as long as I can remember—and that is a long time. It is a most important issue. It is obvious that home students will profit in many ways from the presence on courses of overseas students throughout the further and higher education sectors, bearing in mind their different cultures, languages and background. The same is true for overseas students, who gain similarly from their association with home students. But this important argument falls to the ground when there is an unduly high ratio of overseas students to home students on courses. The whole process of education is different in such circumstances, and its effect upon those participating will be quite different. That is obvious.
I am not advocating a reduction in the number of overseas students on the basis of that argument, but the matter should be faced. When, however, lecturers and professors complain—as many have—that to put up fees to overseas students in the way that is now envisaged will damage their institutions, one presumes that, as educationists, they are involved in the educational argument, to which I


am sympathetic. Again and again, one hears from them the argument that to raise overseas students' fees will mean that fewer will come to this country to study and that courses, and, therefore, the jobs of professors and lecturers, will be at risk. That is an understandable argument, but it is not altruistic.
We have yet to see whether the Government's actions on overseas students' fees will lead to a lower enrolment in our institutions. In any case, we should take a long, hard look at some courses that are run 90 per cent. for overseas students. We should accept the fact that the subsidy that has been allowed for such students for so many years has been a direct form of overseas aid. In future it should be drawn from the overseas aid budget.
This morning I received a letter—perhaps other hon. Members also received one—from the president of the Leeds university union. He draws attention, amongst other things, to one sentence in the Select Committee report, which states:
 It is essential that if the full economic cost argument is to be accepted, then subsidies for overseas students should be accepted as necessary and should be carried on the ODA budget.
That is a wise and sensible point, and it would take a good deal of the heat out of this question if it could be achieved.
Paragraph 50 of the recent interim report of the Education, Science and Arts Committee, of which I am, incidentally, a member, deals with that point explicitly. There was also some discussion of the matter during a recent debate on the Brandt report. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) and a number of other hon. Members were not present for that excellent debate.
It is clear that many countries, especially the oil-rich ones, can afford to pay the full cost of fees for their students studying in this country, and they should be asked to do so. One has only to look at the large number of establishments that have accepted overseas students on a full-cost basis for years—for example, the Bell school of languages—to realise that there is a stronger case for charging the full fees to many more overseas students than previously.
I hope, nevertheless, that the Government will do everything possible to help students from Third world countries to

come to Britain to study. It is important not to interfere with the admission procedures of universities as other educational institutions for these students, but there must be some device, via the ODA budget, to give this help.
With regard to the percentage of overseas students that it is desirable to have on any course for the mutual benefit of both overseas and home students, it is interesting to note that four years ago London colleges were given five years to reduce the percentage of overseas students on any one course to 33⅓ per cent., and colleges overall were asked to reduce the percentage to 20 per cent.
I give two examples. On 1 November 1979, full-time and sandwich courses in one institution had 1,635 students, of whom 366—22·4 per cent.—were from overseas. In another institution, the full-time and sandwich courses had 1,115 students, of whom 202—18·1 per cent.—were from overseas. That had been achieved two years in advance of the target date. That is the situation in London, which is an interesting and special case by any standard.
Finally, there is the question of the qualification "ordinarily resident". This is an important question, and some help on it would be valuable. What is "ordinarily resident"? Surely it must be made to mean " properly and genuinely resident", because it is, I regret to say, common knowledge that in the past some students deliberately contrived to postpone the beginning of their higher-level course until they had managed to accumulate three years' residence in this country. I mention that fact not meanly but because I think that by that device they got in at the expense of some others who might have been more deserving. They had achieved previous residence in the country by almost any device, including, one suspects—speaking professionally—deliberately failing examinations in order to have to repeat a year in a qualifying examination such as A-level and so gain the residential qualification needed for full grant. This has been a serious matter and it needs to be looked at very carefully.
I support the call by the right hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals) for particularly sympathetic treatment for


refugee students, especially those from Vietnam. That is very important as a compassionate attitude is called for.

Mr. Ernest Armstrong: I welcome the opportunity to make a brief contribution to the debate, because we are dealing with a very important subject. That is why I am so disappointed by the Secretary of State's speech. As has been said, that speech could have been written by the Treasury, but it was more like one written by the treasurer of the local ratepayers' association. I say that in sadness, because I am still an idealist about education. Both at home and overseas it has a key role in preparing people for the complex world in which we live.
Perhaps my greatest experience as an hon. Member was to go to the conference of Commonwealth Education Ministers as the representative of the United Kingdom. Many things impressed me, but two things in particular have lived with me since.
The first was the tremendous note that Britain has played, particularly in higher and technical education, in the preparation of men and women throughout the world, particularly in the Commonwealth, for leadership in their own communities. Secondly, that experience put into perspective for me our position in the world.
I come from Durham, in the North-East of England. People there have tended to look inward. I can well understand that and explain it. For example, unemployment in the Northern region has always been almost double the national average. There is plenty of excuse for being inward-looking.
But, when I talked to other Commonwealth Education Ministers, saw their problems and had the pleasure of visiting their countries, I recognised how necessary it was for our Secretary of State for Education and Science to lift his horizons and not talk as though he merely had a job to defend the ratepayers and the economic position of our country.
In world terms, we are not a poor country. If we get our priorities right, we can honour our continuing obligations and duties particularly to the Third world and the Commonwealth. It is

in that context that I want to speak briefly.
British education, particularly higher education, has a unique role. It is a remarkable institution. The benefit to students here and to our own community from the influx of overseas students can never be quantified. Figures have been bandied about in the debate, and the Secretary of State will have been bombarded by people who can prove figures wrong, and so on. I do not want to go into the figures now, but I say this to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I hope that he has not underestimated the bitter resentment, particularly in the Commonwealth, at what we have done.
I have just been to Cyprus. I did not find bitterness there, but I certainly found resentment and bewilderment. The argument of the people there is that we have been responsible directly for Cyprus for a long time. We did not build a university there, nor did we encourage one. I do not complain about that. Cypriot students came here freely. English is a compulsory language in the primary schools, as well as in secondary education. Wherever I went in Cyprus I spoke to people from this country who are doing important work in that very beautiful but tragic island. I spoke also to Members of Parliament, educationists and others, and without exception one of the first matters that they raised was the decision that we are now debating.
What such people believe is important. I do not accuse the Secretary of State of positive discrimination or malice aforethought, but those people sincerely believe that they are getting less favourable treatment than, for example, people from the EEC countries—countries which have many more resources. I believe that to be true. They also believe that this is a piece of discrimination that is contrary to the kind of thing accepted in Britain and throughout the Commonwealth in the past.
It is not only a question of the decision about university students. When one allies the decision with the withdrawal of resources from the British Council and the cuts in overseas aid, it sounds like hypocrisy to talk about concentrating resources and making sure that instead of spreading the margarine thinly we are going to direct the resources to where they are needed.
The trouble is that we are dealing with a Government who have an obsession about public expenditure and are cutting across the board. In the dangerous world in which we live, we should spend any money that we can spend and allocate any resources that we can allocate that will give people the feeling that we care about the world—that although we spend a lot of money on defence, and so on, and regard that as necessary, we want to promote those things that will bring understanding and co-operation and achieve development.
Our education system, with its preparation of people who do valuable work throughout the Commonwealth and the world, including the universities, brings together young people—and the majority of people throughout the world are young and poor. Therefore, this decision looks like an act of discrimination by Britain against those who are young and poor.
It is rare in this House to find in a debate that enlightened self-interest and moral obligations coincide, but they do on this occasion. It is impossible to quantify the benefits that we get from bringing overseas students to this country. I plead with the Secretary of State to ensure that no one in the world can say that by its actions Britain is positively discriminating against the poorest students from the countries that really need the kind of intercourse, education and development that we can give them in our higher education. We have that duty and obligation to the Third world.
As I said, the second thing about the Commonwealth Education Ministers' conference that I found so impressive was that it showed how obsessed we had been with our own internal problems. We had convinced ourselves that we had such great problems here that the rest of the world must take second place. We are a rich country compared with most other countries. I am thinking now about those who have looked to Britain for higher education for a long time, and will continue to do so, but who are considering looking elsewhere also.
If the Secretary of State cannot reverse the policy, I plead with him to ensure that we produce a scheme whereby those who are in most desperate need—the poorest from the poorest countries—are able to come to this country and

strengthen our education service but then to go back to their countries and perform a useful role there.

6 pm

Mr. William van Srraubenzee: The House always recognises that the right hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Mr. Armstrong) speaks with very great sincerity in these and other matters. I am certain that he struck a considerable echo in the minds of many hon. Members as he spoke. In my equally brief, or perhaps briefer, contribution, I want to suggest to him and others that out of the current situation could come considerable improvements for the very people that he most has in mind.
I share the right hon. Gentleman's belief in the role of this country in terms of overseas students. A rich country—we all know that we are still a rich country in world terms—has a moral duty—I would not put it lower than that—to share some part of its riches in education with students from countries less fortunate. I believe that very deeply, and I welcome most warmly the words of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State, in his admirable speech, making it perfectly clear that that is the Government's outlook also, even if we differ about ways in which it should be done.
Let us be quite clear about one matter. If there is any one group of hon. Members who are not entitled to sit in white sheets in respect of this matter, it is the Opposition Front Bench. Have people forgotten what happened in 1966? I have refreshed my memory by reading the report of the debate on this matter on 23 February 1967. It so happens that I wound up for the then Opposition. The two principal speakers for the Government and Opposition Front Benches are, sadly, both dead, and the Minister winding up for the then Government is now reposing in another place. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Johnson) and I are the only two survivors in the House today of that debate.
Have people forgotten what happened? The then Government entered the field of discrimination against overseas students by way of an answer to a written question on the last day of term before Christmas. Those are the facts.


It is all on record in the Hansard of the day. I shall not delay the House by reading it. To say that there was not controversy about it, as the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) said, to say that it was not a major breach of principle, as the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) said—[HON. MEMBERS: " Where are they? "] They have both been good attenders throughout, and I make no point about that. I am sure that they will be back to listen to more important contributions. But to say these things is simply not in accordance with the facts.
At the time, I warned that once that principle had been accepted—and it was the Labour Government who did it; of that there is no doubt, because it is all clear on the record—inevitably we would be moving into a field in which eventually there would be full cost, however one defines that, for overseas students.
Therefore, while we can have our legitimate debates and legitimate differences of opinion, the one set of people who are not entitled to sit in white sheets are the Opposition Front Bench. On this subject the right hon. Member for Lanark (Dame Judith Hart) cannot sit now in white—or in charming pink, as she is dressed at present. She and her hon. Friend are the two people in this House who are not entitled to do that.
Subsequently, various Governments have worked at this problem. Obviously, I am not free to talk in detail, any more than the right hon. Lady is, but I must admit that when I was honoured to serve in junior rank at the Department of Education and Science—still the greatest Department of State; I say that to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary—I worked at this matter. Frankly, I did not deliver. If and when the right hon. Lady replies, and when, as I suspect from the trailer that we heard earlier this evening, she unfolds to us the wonderful, marvellous and heartfelt scheme that she could have implemented if she had been able to do so, I am afraid that I shall have to apply to her what I apply to myself: she did not deliver.
It is no good Ministers of previous Governments, myself included, stating the wonderful things that we would have

done if we did not actually do them. Therefore, I hope very much that when the right hon. Lady reaches that section of her speech—it must be there, because obviously she has prepared it—she will reflect a little and wonder whether she ought to deliver it.
Lastly, I can detect in the decision the hand of the Treasury. That is not a particularly profound thing to say. I do not think that it is necessarily bad. We must live with the realities of life. The Treasury will be in on this matter. But it is true that in an interim period we are left—I think that this was acknowledged, if not in words, by my right hon. and learned Friend—with a system that is indiscriminate. Incidentally, a very good representation to hon. Members on this matter was recently released by the National Union of Students. It is very timely, very restrained and very good. When the NUS talks of educational issues, it can often be extremely effective. I wish that it would stick to such matters—although increasingly, of course, it will be doing so. I recommend its representations to hon. Members. But the system is indiscriminate.
I also put in a plug for consideration of the sub-degree work. We have concentrated our debate so far, understandably, on the university and polytechnic student. This country makes a very great contribution also in sub-degree level work. I merely give as an illustration the work that we do for the diploma in banking and its effects throughout the world. As we consider this subject, I hope that we shall remember the sub-degree work. I trust that we shall thereby be able to move increasingly to a system in which the appropriate Department for this matter, which is the Overseas Development Administration, is the funding body. I want to see it taken away from the Department of Education and Science. It would have the subsidiary advantage—I stress the word " subsidiary ", for this would never be a main reason for doing it—of becoming overseas aid in terms of the statistics, which it is not at present and which is one of the reasons why our position in the league table looks so bad compared with that of the French.
I end on one doubt I wonder whether the hon. Member for Bedwellty is right. Could we ever effectively have a system that differentiated between students in an individual country? Let me illustrate


what I mean. Do we honestly think that we could have a scheme that could, as it were, means-test parents in Bangladesh? We have only to reflect for a few minutes on the enormous administrative problem in both Bangladesh and this country to see that that would be beyond our competence, without a gross bureaucracy. But if we could discriminate on foreign policy, on links with the Commonwealth and on other grounds, that is something that I hope we would do.
I have a feeling that when the history of this matter is written we shall look back and say that the inevitable result of the Labour Government's initial decision of 1966, which took more than 10 years to reach its final fruition, meant that this country could have a more sophisticated way of doing that which, on the whole, both sides of the House wish to achieve.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I understand that the Front Bench speakers wish to wind up the debate at 6.30 pm and that each spokesman wishes to speak for a quarter of an hour. There are 20 minutes left. It would help if hon. Members could confine their speeches to five minutes or less, in order to give other hon. Members an opportunity to speak.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: I shall try to comply, Mr. Speaker, with your request. Whatever happens, I shall sit down at 6.15 pm. I was privileged to be Chairman of the Sub-Committee on overseas development, which considered this problem. It is important to recognise—as the Secretary of State did—that the recommendation of the Expenditure Committee in 1972 concerned postgraduate students. It did not concern the fees of students at all levels. As my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) pointed out, we have received no evidence to the effect that overseas students keep British students out of our universities. Such evidence was never brought before my Committee or that of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: I did not say that. I said that there were 5,000 more overseas students than provision had been made for, and 5,000 fewer home students than provision had intended.

Mr. McNamara: That was not the impression that the right hon. and learned Gentleman gave. He impled that foreign students were keeping British students out of universities. There is no evidence to that effect. I do not wish to go into the report in detail. I hope to have an opportunity to do that on another occasion.
Both the Sub-Committee on overseas development and the Sub-Committee chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West were prevented from being able to assess the value and quality of Government decisions. That is evident from the recommendations of the special report and from paragraph 16 of our report. If the House and its Committees are to make such assessments, they must be given access to the advice that is being given to the Government. That does not mean that access would impinge on a Government's political decision. All Governments have a right to make such decisions. The decision of this Government is horribly wrong. However, in the interests of the public, a Committee should be entitled to assess the evidence upon which a decision has been made.
According to the evidence before our Committee, it appears that a diktat came from the Treasury. The Chancellor of the Exchequer picked the thing that was easiest to cut and that would cause the fewest problems at home. He decided on overseas students' fees No previous work had been done. No knowledge or figures were available to show the effects of that decision at home, abroad or in the developing countries. That cannot be good for Government, no matter which parties or issues are involved. Decisions should not be made until the consequences have been carefully thought out. That has not been done. An educational adviser from the Overseas Development Administration said that it did not know about the decision until it had been made. It had no opportunity to consider it. In the interests of our constituents, we must look at such activities carefully and ensure that decisions are properly considered.
Many students have come to Britain to pursue courses at universities but have had first to obtain qualifications from our technical schools. They will not now be able to get those qualifications as a


result of the great increase in fees. The Secretary of State should consider continuing courses for those taking A-levels and for those who intend to go on to degree courses. Courses of a special developmental nature, such as those involving the natural sciences, education, veterinary surgery, medicine and agriculture, have been hit hardest and have been hurt the most. There has been a whacking increase in those fees, and that is disastrous.
The hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) spoke glibly about putting this cost on to the budget of the ODA. That would be fine if there were extra money available. However, the Government have plucked a figure of £106 million out of the air. If that is added to the amount that will be lost, we shall be faced with a figure of £221 million. We would be talking not of a cut of 15 per cent. but of 30 to 35 per cent.

Mrs. Kellet-Bowman: Time.

Mr. McNamara: It is indeed time. I shall sit down. At least, I gave way to the Secretary of State, despite the fact that he was not prepared to do so when I wished to intervene.

Mr. Christopher Brocklebank Fowler: I am also a member of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee. I voted in favour of the Committee's report. We all know that sudden cuts in public expenditure, however necessary, can lead to hasty and ill-considered judgments. One can argue indefinitely about the extent to which the decision to increase fees may have affected universities, Third world students and Britain's economic prospects.
I shall concentrate my brief remarks on the need for a coherent policy. From our investigations, we know that there has never been a coherent policy. There is one policy for education and overseas development, and another for domestic education. Apparently, there is no system for determining a policy that takes account of the views of all the Departments in Whitehall. If we are to have a proper policy for the education of overseas students that ties in with our interests, those views must be considered.
The Committee noted the absence of a coherent interdepartmental policy for overseas students or in respect of Britain's political, economic, trade, development and immigration objectives in her relationships with the Third world. The strength of those relationships is more important to the maintenance of peace in the Third world than almost any military support that could be given.
The best answer to Soviet influence in the developing world, particularly in Africa, is training, trade and development, not tanks. Non-military support to developing countries is essential if we are to protect and develop our commercial interests. I therefore agree with the right hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Mr. Armstrong). Paragraph 36 of the report spells out all the arguments. I shall not detain the House by quoting from that report. Our recommendations suggest how our policies could be improved.
I hope that the relevant Ministries will consider the issues carefully and that the relevant Ministers will reply to our recommendations with the minimum amount of delay. In the meantime, I regret that I shall not be able to support the Government's amendment.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: There are no public expenditure decisions that do not inherently contain political decisions or decisions about what Governments can get away with. This decision fallls into that category. The Government have assumed that they could get away with such a decision. The decision results from the most narrow-minded form of nationalism and chauvinism that I have experienced during the six years that I have been a Member of Parliament. I think that I can speak with some authority, because I recognise British nationalism when I see it.
The decision has racialist and deeply ideological overtones. We must consider the educational implications of those decisions in the context of the historic relations between the United Kingdom—as a former imperial Power—and the former colonial dependencies.
My main objection to the decision is that it is an example of falling back on the whole transition from Empire to Commonwealth which has been part of


the consensus policy of successive British Governments. If the dependency created by the imperial system on the imperial centre for services that are not made available on the periphery, particularly services of specialist postgraduate higher education, is to be transformed into a system of Commonwealth participation, it must include the maintenance of the cultural and political links, particularly in the education service. The Government's decision is an attempt to renege on their post-imperial obligations.
Hon. Members have already advanced the arguments on the indirect trade benefits brought by the education of overseas students in this country. I wish to refer to only one education argument, namely, the benefit to students who are domiciled in the United Kingdom of being on courses with overseas students.
Too often, our courses and our system of higher education are ethnocentric, with a Western bias, as though our white culture were somehow universal. The presence of overseas students on courses, whether social sciences, humanities or, particularly, those that are development-ally oriented, can result in their being determined towards the needs of Southern and Third world countries. The presence of overseas students on those courses brings to them a genuine internationalism in the education system, and it is that internationalism that is so sadly missing in the Government's decision.

Mr. Anthony Kershaw: The Labour Party should not stir up too much sound and fury over this admittedly unfortunate necessity. Labour Members should bear in mind that, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State said, the previous Labour Government doubled fees for overseas students. So there is no matter of principle between us, and no hon. Member doubts that there is some limit to the numbers of overseas students who can properly be looked after in this country. We are divided on how that should be done.
What worries me about the Government's policy is that it is not a carefully thought out policy for the whole question. We ought to ask ourselves what overseas students are here for, from which countries they should come, what skills they should have and what is our purpose

in having them here. Are they part of our aid programme, part of our cultural diplomacy or a help to British industry, or is their purpose to shore up some of our higher education establishments?
Each of those purposes is respectable, but each is dealt with by a different Ministry, and the Departments have not been talking to each other about the matter. Even (he facts are not known. We do not know how many overseas students are here or what financial benefits, if any, they bring to this country. There is great dispute about that. The Government say that every overseas student costs us something and that the total bill is £102 million, but that is denied, by many good judges and by the universities. We ought to find out the facts.
Whatever the cost, it falls on the DES, and its budget is hit by overseas students, whatever other benefits the country may get from them. We must therefore sympathise with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State in his efforts to economise when he spots that expenditure by his Department in respect of which he is not entitled to take into consideration the fact that other areas may gain an advantage from that spending.
There can be no doubt about the effect on some overseas countries. I have just returned from Malaysia, which has 17,000 students over here. The Ministers in Kuala Lumpur gave me a proper roasting. Shock and disappointment were the reaction of one, and another said that it was the end of an era. Applications from Malaysia are drastically down. There used to be 100 students at the British Council in Kuala Lumpur every morning trying to find out about courses in this country. On the day that I visited the British Council last week, there were only 10 students.
As soon as the Government made their announcement, ambassadors from other countries were anxious to speak to the Ministry of Education in Kuala Lumpur as soon as possible. Germany has offered 50 scholarships and the United States has offered 1,000 scholarships. Canada, which has apparently expanded its higher education provision much too fast, is longing to get students to keep the programme going, and even India is anxious to have more students. In so far as


overseas students are part of our cultural diplomacy, we are doing ourselves a certain amount of harm.
Of course, these are early days. The numbers may not fall. Our institutions are of a high standard and will be sought after. Nevertheless, until we know exactly what are our purposes and policy, I hope that the Government will establish machinery to enable proper consultation to take place between all the Departments involved.

Mr. Frank Dobson: I shall confine my remarks to the effect of the Government's policy on the postgraduate medical institutes and their associated hospitals. I take as an example the Great Ormond Street hospital for sick children and the Institute of Child Health, which, like many other institutes, is dedicated entirely to the relief of human suffering and carries out practical research and teaching. Such institutes have become centres of renown and excellence throughout the world and, therefore, have a high proportion of foreign students.
That high proportion is accentuated by the fact that the institutes are closely connected with their associated hospitals. Because of that, a substantial number of the British medics who go to the hospitals and gain a great deal from attending the associated institutes do not bother to register as students at the institutes.
Consequently, there is a gross overcounting of the overseas students. As a result, the Government-imposed cuts will reduce the income of some world-famous and worthwhile institutes by as much as 40 per cent. or 60 per cent. If that policy is carried out, the fees for those important institutes will be not the sums of £3,000 or £5,000 a year that have been quoted but as much as £30,000 per student. Those are the fees that will be required if the sums that the Government are cutting are to be made up.
Of course, there is no possibility of anyone coming from abroad paying £30,000. The cuts will therefore damage not only the institutes but—because substantial numbers of the academic staff who teach in them also work in the hospitals—hospitals such as Great Ormond Street, the Maudsley and others.

They will suffer and there will be empty beds if the policy is pursued.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: I do not criticise the logic of the decision or the Government's desire to protect taxpayers' money. Both are understandable and defensible objectives. However, I am unhappy about the lack of consultation. I wish to make three points for consideration by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State.
First, I hope that the policy will be carefully monitored. Cyprus and Mauritius have already been mentioned, and to those I would add Greece. As that country is to join the Common Market in January, it seems rather illogical that it should not be given the benefit in the next academic year of the facilities of its neighbour countries. If that were done, it would create great good will for little cost.
I also wish to stress that refugee students should be given preferential consideration. We have a long and noble tradition of helping refugees and I hope that that will continue.
Finally, we have in this country, and particularly in the University of London, some of the finest specialised institutions in the world. Reference has been made to the School of Oriental and African Studies and the School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. It would be a crime and a tragedy if they were allowed to go to the wall. I hope that the monitoring will be so effective as to mitigate the worst effects that have been predicted.

Dame Judith Hart: There cannot often have been debate in which a Minister has found himself with comparatively little support from his own Benches. One or two of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's hon. Friends liked his speech, but not his policy. Only one liked his speech and his policy.
There is a problem here, and we need to find the right solution. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has not found the right solution, and he is doing great damage in many ways. We must consider the students themselves, the Commonwealth, non-Commonwealth developing countries and our own universities,


colleges and institutes of higher education. There are also, in a vague and indefinable phrase, our own longer-term interests. Foreshadowing our debate on Brandt, we should also consider the mutuality of interests, which the Government appear to forget.
The kernel of the problem lies with the students. There are rich students from rich countries, rich students from poor countries, poor students from poor countries and poor students from rich countries. We have to find a way to protect poor students from wherever they come and students from poor countries. They should be our priority. There is also the question of refugee students, and I am glad that their problem was underlined in the debate. I hope that the Secretary of State and the Home Secretary will respond to the pleas and that a change will be made. The students who come to this country are not studying medieval Italian. They are studying agriculture, science, medicine, engineering, economics, law, administration, pharmacy and so on.
A month or two ago I was in Sri Lanka, at the same time as the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office. He stated that developing countries must help each other. How can they if they do not have the fund of training and education which, even on his terms, will allow them to do so? Education is the key. The increase in fees abandons overseas students and the poorest countries and kicks the concept of development in the teeth. The reactions from overseas have been devastating, and that alone should make the Government think again.
EEC countries should be happy that we are discriminating in favour of their students. However, at a meeting in the other place, chaired by Lord Gladwyn, an ambassador from an EEC country spoke of disquiet in educational circles in his country at the British policy towards students from the EEC. That remark was referred to in a report by the Council for Education in the Commonwealth. Does anyone for one second suppose that the French or the Germans, in their own interest, would behave as we have done?
The same report states that a representative from a North American country expressed amazement at the crudity of the

Government's calculations of " full cost " in working out fees. Based on his own calculations, that representative thought that students from overseas brought a net benefit to the United Kingdom. As the phrase
 a representative from a North American country 
is taken from the report, it can only be a representative of Canada or the United States.
I do not know whether the Secretary of State has read the evidence given to the Select Committee dealing with overseas development. It is not a matter that his officials would normally draw to his attention. The High Commissioner for Sierra Leone said:
 Finally, may I ask what the savings achieved from this exercise will amount to? Even if it were a few million pounds would Great Britain prefer to mortgage the reservoir of goodwill and steadfast friendship of our Commonwealth colleagues against money of this magnitude? I hope not.
What monetary value would the Secretary of State put on our Commonwealth connection and role? Can Mr. Milton Friedman assess that?
Representations on the matter were made by Mauritius as long ago as the Lusaka conference. Representations have also come from Lesotho, Pakistan and Bangladesh. A week or two ago, in a written answer, the Secretary of State said that he proposed to reply to the Commonwealth Secretary-General. Many of us would be interested to see that reply. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will publish it.
Courses and departments in our institutions of higher education are devastatingly affected. The Secretary of State's remarks gave rise to a shade of misunderstanding about home and overseas students. The Association of University Teachers in Scotland stated:
 it is certain that a shortfall of three overseas students means the equivalent of one lecturer's salary and that the loss of one lecturer means that teaching for eleven students is lost, i.e. ultimately there must be eight home students fewer.
Let the Secretary of State ask his officials how to deal with that.
How will the policy affect us? Let us look at the matter crudely, taking the Government's view of the world. They clearly believe that our approach to overseas countries should emphasise our strategic and commercial interests by a


reduced aid programme. There may be a certain logic in supporting our losses through the overseas aid programme, but not by cuts of as much as 14 per cent., which are among the most savage in the public expenditure programme. As the Select Committees have discovered, in this field there is not enough consultation.
In considering our strategic and commercial interests, let us look at what Thailand said to the Select Committee. In a memorandum it said:
Thailand imports British machinery and tools, especially in the private sector, so British trained technicians and engineers are required to handle these valuable imports. The United Kingdom would lose sales to Thailand and trade in general between the two countries would drop owing to the lack of British trained and educated personnel.
I imagine that the Government are concerned to advance our commercial interests with Thailand. The evidence from Thailand was:
 If the British Government does increase the fees I can tell you that the number of our students here will have to be reduced by more than half. Government scholarships will be cut by more than half.
That is borne out by what the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw) said about Malaysia.
The evidence from Thailand went on to deal with the multiplier effect. It was said that a reduction of even one student going to the United Kingdom had an impact on hundreds of students in Thailand. If we want to trade with and sell to developing countries, there has to be a core in the countries to which we sell which understands our technology. If the developing countries go to the Soviet Union, France, Belgium or the United States, they will end up buying Soviet, French, Belgian or American products. That will happen because those will be the products that they understand. The folly in terms of the Government's stated objectives is extraordinary.
There are predictions that we shall have 2 million unemployed. We are watching Britain become deindustrialised. The Government emphasise the desperate need for further impetus in British exports. Could anything, in any language, be crazier than to abandon advantage in a wilful act of sabotage?
Let us consider our world interests in the broadest sense. Africa has had

10,000 students in Britain in recent years. Half of the Heads of the Commonwealth were educated in Britain—that is, half of the Presidents and Prime Ministers. The hon. Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) laughs.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Mrs. Kellett-Bowman rose——

Dame Judith Hart: I merely comment on the fact that the hon. Lady laughs.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Unfortunately, they have not put into practice the humanitarian principles that they learnt here.

Dame Judith Hart: I let the hon. Lady's comment speak for itself.
At a meeting to which I have referred, one of the representatives of an African country expressed dismay that Britain was throwing away all the good will and support painstakingly built up by so many over a long period. He said that African countries felt that they were being let down by Britain in a way that was forcing them into the hands of the Eastern bloc, a move that they were reluctant to make. If African countries are forced into the Soviet bloc, America or France, the effect will be to sever connections with Britain. Can that be in Britain's interests? Does it make us—I use the Prime Minister's favourite phrase of the moment—" proud to be British "?
I refer again to the Government's distinguished external guru—I do not refer to the Secretary of State for Industry—Professor Milton Friedman. Do the Government think that he has ever given a thought to British national interests in the world? Is it supposed that Professor Milton Friedman comprehends what the Commonwealth is? I do not think so.

Mr. Kinnock: He knows Hong Kong.

Dame Judith Hart: That is true. The professor thinks that Hong Kong is the most superb success story of world development.
A comment by the University of Manchester institute of science and technology was reported by The Times Higher Education Supplement in November 1979. The report states:
 The Government's proposals are so ill-thought out, so obviously worked out on the back of an envelope, so harmful to technological research, to the academic community, to prosperity of the nation at large, that once


this becomes apparent sanity will prevail. But reasoned argument only appeals to reasonable men and women. And reasoned argument often comes a poor second or third to the demands of Government exigency or to political force.
We call upon the Government not to spend three years monitoring their proposals but to think again and consider reducing overseas students' fees. By all means, let a rational policy be worked out. Let us have a fair policy. Let this absurd, shameful, harmful and self-destructive step be reversed, in the interests of the students, the Commonwealth and ourselves. I call upon the Government to do that.

The Minister for Overseas Development (Mr. Neil Marten): Do I take it from the concluding remarks of the right hon Member for Lanark (Dame Judith Hart) that Labour policy is now specifically to return to the status quo?

Dame Judith Hart: It is Labour policy to reverse the increase in overseas students' fees while a rational policy is worked out.

Mr. Marten: Would it not be for the convenience of the House if the right hon. Lady obtained a copy of the document—I think that she said that it was a Green Paper when she intervened in the speech of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science—that she told us the previous Labour Government were about to publish so that we might take into account all that the previous Government had in mind? I think that that would be helpful.

Dame Judith Hart: I am happy to assist the hon. Gentleman. I suggest that with my full permission—I am sure that it would be with the full permission of the former Secretary of State for Education and Science, who, alas, is no longer in the House—he seeks from the officials of the Department of Education and Science and the Overseas Development Administration the proposals that were under consideration between the two Departments before the general election.

Mr. Marten: I am sure that the right hon. Lady will pursue that matter with her colleagues and, as a supplement, provide an explanation of how Labour's proposals would have been funded.
I know that a number of hon. Members wanted to participate in the debate. They were absent from the Chamber because of their commitment to serve on Select Committees. I think that four Select Committee sat today. For the benefit of those who were not in the Chamber and did not hear my right hon. and learned Friend open the debate on behalf of the Government, I make it clear that I shall not respond in this debate to the reports that we have received from the Select Committees, which we are continuing to study. A number of hon. Members have raised questions on the Select Committee reports. The Government must have time to give the reports full and fair consideration. We are studying them with care and interest and we shall respond to them as quickly as possible.
The hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) referred to the 1973 report of the Expenditure Committee. I think that I was the Chairman of the Committee at that time and that he was a member of it. The report was oriented towards postgraduate students. As far as I can remember—I have not read the report since 1974—it was concerned with loans to students. That report gave rise to the fees that we recommended for postgraduate students. I think that that is a correct interpretation.

Mr. Christopher Price: I have read the report. The hon. Gentleman is right to think that he was the Chairman of the Committee. However, I was not a member of this place at that time. I was out of the House. I joined him a year later.

Mr. Marten: That is why it was such a good report. Doubtless it would have been better if the hon. Gentleman had been a member of the Committee.
I recognise that a number of hon. Members are worried about the implications at home and abroad of the Government's decision to phase in full-cost fees for overseas students. We shall be dealing fully and carefully with the issues raised by the Select Committees. It is essential to keep a sense of proportion and, above all, not to cry woe prematurely. As my right hon. and learned Friend said, we shall be monitoring the developments as firm facts and figures become available.
May I now pick up one or two of the points made in the debate, although not


all of them, I am afraid, in the short time I have available since I have to sit down at 7 o'clock. [An HON. MEMBER: " Get on with it then."] I am getting on with it right now. I start first with what I thought was a curious remark, if I heard and understood it correctly, from the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock). He said that the Commonwealth was in shreds as a result of this decision. I do not know whether he meant it—I imagine that he did not—and I can only say that that is an example of the need to keep a sense of proportion.

Mr. Kinnock: The hon. Gentleman had better read what I said.

Mr. Marten: I shall indeed, tomorrow.
My hon. Friend the Member for Somerset North (Mr. Dean) spoke about Cyprus. We recognise the various special cases which have been mentioned in the debate and most particularly that of Cyprus. The Government will most carefully consider a case such as this in the light of all that has been said. I cannot give any undertakings, but we shall certainly consider what has been said in the House today.
The right hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals), in what I thought an interesting speech if I may say so, said that nothing in the aid programme is more important than education. That may be so. It is, I think, a question of opinion, and that is clearly his opinion. But I think that the strength of it will be shown in the extent to which the developing countries which are receiving aid devote that aid to education. There are many other priorities apart from education in the general programme of a developing country, but I agree that it is important, and I believe that time will tell the extent to which the developing countries regard it as important in the way that the right hon. Gentleman thinks it is.
I turn next to the question of students from the EEC countries paying home student fees. This is, of course, a logical consequence of our membership of the Community. As some hon. Members will recall, I did not support our entry into the Community, but that is a logical sequence of entry and all that flows from it. But the concession of home student fees for students from other countries

in the European Community represents a practical acceptance of the principle of student mobility, as it is called, within the Community. It anticipates the resolution which will bind us to adopt such a measure in line with other Community countries.
I should add that this is one area where, as my right hon. and learned Friend said, the export of United Kingdom students is greater than the import of overseas students. The cost of accommodating the present number of EEC students is estimated at £1·6 million initially, rising to £4·2 million in 1983–84.

Mr. Christopher Price: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on the question of EEC students?

Mr. Marten: Yes, but it must be the last time I give way.

Mr. Price: The hon. Gentleman talked of it as a logical development. Will he confirm that there is absolutely no directive in force and no prospect of one ever being in force on this issue? Why do the Government kow-tow to the EEC on issues where there is no directive in force, whereas they bravely stand up to the EEC even on issues where there is a directive in force?

Mr. Marten: I am told that there is no directive in force, but I am advised that what we are doing is consistent with the general development of the Community.
The right hon. Member for Norwich, North and other hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Mr. Brinton) and, in particular, the right hon. Member for Lanark, spoke of refugees and their eligibility for treatment as home students. This is an important point for the House to have before it. The Government are aware of the difficulties faced by refugees, for example, those from Vietnam. As to their student awards and tuition fees—because of their lack of residence qualifications—these are being given careful consideration, but I cannot yet say what the outcome will be.

Mr. Stephen Ross: It is an absolute disgrace——

Mr. Marten: I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman. I heard what he said.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Shame.

Mr. Ross: I am ashamed.

Mr. Marten: I do not want to get into an argument, because I have more to say, but I am not sure why the hon. Member is ashamed that the Government are giving deep consideration to this matter. I think that we had better leave it there and perhaps talk about it afterwards.
The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) raised many points, including his reference to lack of consultation. The first special report of the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts deals with the disclosure of information about consultation between Government Departments on policy issues. Again, the Government are giving careful consideration to the points made in that report and, as I said before, they intend to give an early reply.

Mr. Cormack: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Marten: No. I am afraid that I must stop giving way.
I am afraid that I was absent from the Chamber during the speeches of the right hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Mr. Armstrong) and my hon. Friends the Members for Norfolk, Northwest (Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler) and Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee), but I have here interim reports of what they said. I shall read all that they said with care and take full account of it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw) was, I think, critical of the lack of research into many of these matters. We shall carefully consider the machinery which will deal with this aspect of the matter. We need to look at that again.
My hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack) mentioned the question of monitoring. We shall certainly be doing that. He referred also to the question of Greece. The point about Greece is that it will not become a member of the Community until January 1981. We could not justify extending the concessions to Greece in advance of Community membership, and there are administrative difficulties in the way of changing fees half-way through an academic year. So Greece will benefit from the concessions from the beginning of the academic year Septembr 1981, which will mean that Greek students will have to pay full fees for a single academic year.
The Government have made what concessions they think reasonable and can afford. I emphasise that we shall continue to use the aid programme to help students in areas of particular importance to poor countries. We shall thus continue to finance a substantial number of students and trainees nominated by their Governments under our country aid programmes. I think that that is a point which has largely been missed in the debate. The courses that they attend are carefully selected so that they can make an early contribution to the development of their countries on their return.
Understandable concern has been expressed about students from the Commonwealth. Most of the students under our country aid programmes are from the Commonwealth, and in addition we are contributing £3·7 million in 1980–81 to the Commonwealth scholarship and fellowship plan, under which 500 students from Commonwealth developing countries and a further 150 from other Commonwealth countries are at present studying here. These are scholars who make a real contribution to the development of their own countries and to the exchange of ideas and ideals within the Commonwealth, and we shall continue to support the plan.
We also have extended, for this year, the fee support scheme under which we shall assist about 600 postgraduate students from developing countries in selected subjects. This scheme is additional to that referred to by my right hon. and learned Friend.
Furthermore, we are continuing to support a large number of refugee students from several countries, as I have said already, and there is also a large number of students from Zimbabwe. This support will enable them to continue their studies here while we initiate a normal training programme for Zimbabwe with their new Government.
The programmes which I have mentioned, together with special schemes of the British Council and the Inter-University Council, add up to a substantial contribution—costing some £36 million this year—to the training of people from developing countries. The emphasis is on careful selection for studies or relevance to economic and social development. These are identified in the context


of discussions with individual Governments on their overall need for aid. I do not believe that the aid programme should become involved in any generalised schemes of support for private students. The cost would be considerable and I do not consider such schemes as deserving priority from our limited funds.
Training in Britain is only part of our assistance to developing trained manpower in developing countries. We propose to continue support for training in the recipient countries themselves and in third countries when it is more cost-effective to do so rather than to bring students to Britain.
I was happy to notice yesterday at

Edinburgh university, where I was having talks with the veterinary section, that the university is getting aid from the EDF fund for its students and teachers. That is a matter that should be pursued by universities.

I had more that I wanted to say, but I promised to sit down at 7 pm. I should like to conclude by thanking hon. Members and the right hon. Lady for their contributions, which will be studied most carefully, and asking the House to support the amendment moved by the Government.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 230, Noes 292.

Division No. 339]
AYES
[7.01 pm


Abse, Leo
Dobson, Frank
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Adams, Allen
Dormand, Jack
Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rhondda)


Allaun, Frank
Douglas, Dick
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Alton, David
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Anderson, Donald
Dubs, Alfred
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Dunn, James A. (Liverpool, Kirkdale)
Kerr, Russell


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ernest
Dunnett, Jack
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Kinnock, Neil


Ashton, Joe
Eadie, Alex
Lamborn, Harry


Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)
Eastham, Ken
Lamond, James


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire)
Leadbitter, Ted


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
English, Michael
Leighton, Ronald


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Ennals, Rt Hon David
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)


Beith, A. J.
Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Evans, John (Newton)
Litherland, Robert


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Ewing, Harry
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Bidwell, Sydney
Faulds, Andrew
Lyon, Alexander (York)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Field, Frank
Lyons, Edward (Bradford West)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Fitch, Alan
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur (M'brough)
Flannery, Martin
McCartney, Hugh


Bradley, Tom
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
McElhone, Frank


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Ford, Ben
McKay, Alien (Penistone)


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh, Leith)
Forrester, John
McKelvey, William


Buchan, Norman
Foster, Derek
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Maclennan, Robert


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)
Freud, Clement
McNally, Thomas


Campbell, Ian
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
McNamara, Kevin


Campbell-Savours, Dale
George, Bruce
McWilliam, John


Canavan, Dennis
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Magee, Bryan


Cant, R. B.
Gourlay, Harry
Marshall, David (Gl'sgow, Shettles'n)


Carmichael, Neil
Graham, Ted
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Grant, John (Islington C)
Maxton, John


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Maynard, Miss Joan


Coleman, Donald
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Meacher, Michael


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert


Conlan, Bernard
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Mikardo, Ian


Cook, Robin F.
Haynes, Frank
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Cowans, Harry
Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)


Craigen, J. M. (Glasgow, Maryhill)
Holland, Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhall)
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)


Crowther, J. S.
Home Robertson, John
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Cryer, Bob
Homewood, William
Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)


Cunlilfe, Lawrence
Hooley, Frank
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Cunningham, George (Islington S)
Horam, John
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland


Cunningham, Dr John (Whitehaven)
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Newens, Stanley


Davidson, Arthur
Howells, Geraint
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Lianelli)
Huckfield, Les
Ogden, Eric


Davis, Clinton (Hackney Central)
Hudson, Davies, Gwilym Ednyfed
O'Halloran, Michael


Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
O'Neill, Martin


Deakins, Eric
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Dempsey, James
Janner, Hon Greville
Palmer, Arthur


Dewar, Donald
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Park, George


Dixon, Donald
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Parker, John




Parry, Robert
Shore, Rt Hon Peter (Step and Pop)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Penhaligon, David
Short, Mrs Renée
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Prescott, John
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Walker, Rt Hon Harold (Doncaster)


Price, Christopher (Lewisham West)
Silverman, Julius
Watkins, David


Race, Reg
Skinner, Dennis
Weetch, Ken


Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds South)
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Welsh, Michael


Richardson, Miss Jo
Smith, Rt Hon J. (North Lanarkshire)
White, Frank R. (Bury & Radcliffe)


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Snape, Peter
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Soley, Clive
Whitehead, Phillip


Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)
Spearing, Nigel
Whitlock, William


Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Spriggs, Leslie
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Robertson, George
Stallard, A. W.
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald (W Isles)
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee East)


Rodgers, Rt Hon William
Stoddart, David
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Hooker, J. W.
Strang, Gavin
Winnick, David


Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)
Straw, Jack
Woodall, Alec


Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Woolmer, Kenneth


Rowlands, Ted
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Wrigglesworth, lan


Ryman, John
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)



Sandelson, Neville
Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Sever, John
Tilley, John
Mr. James Hamilton and


Sheerman, Barry
Tlnn, James
Mr. George Morton.


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert (A'ton-u-L)
Torney, Tom





NOES


Adley, Robert
Costain, A. P.
Henderson, Barry


Aitken, Jonathan
Cranborne, Viscount
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Alexander, Richard
Crouch, David
Hicks, Robert


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Ancram, Michael
Dickens, Geoffrey
Hill, James


Arnold, Tom
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)


Aspinwall, Jack
Dover, Denshore
Holland, Philip (Carlton)


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Hooson, Tom


Atkins, Robert (Preston North)
Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Hordern, Peter


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Durant, Tony
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Dykes, Hugh
Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildford)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Bell, Sir Ronald
Edwards, R Hon N. (Pembroke)
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Bendall, Vivian
Eggar, Timothy
Hurd, Hon Douglas


Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)
Elliott, Sir William
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Eyre, Reginald
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Best, Keith
Fairbairn, Nicholas
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Bevan, David Gilroy
Fairgrieve, Russell
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Faith, Mrs Sheila
Kitson, Sir Timothy


Biggs-Davison, John
Fair, John
Knox, David


Blackburn. John
Fell, Anthony
Lamont, Norman


Blaker, Peter
Fanner, Mrs Peggy
Lang, Ian


Body, Richard
Finsberg, Geoffrey
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Fisher, Sir Nigel
Latham, Michael


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)
Lawrence, Ivan


Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Lawson, Nigel


Bowden, Andrew
Fookes, Miss Janet
Lee, John


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Forman, Nigel
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Bright, Graham
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Brinton, Tim
Fox, Marcus
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Brittan, Leon
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Lloyd, Ian (Havant & Waterloo)


Brooke, Hon Peter
Fry, Peter
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Brotherton, Michael
Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Loveridge, John


Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'thorpe)
Gardner, Edward (South Fylde)
Luce, Richard


Browne, John (Winchester)
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Lyell, Nicholas


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Macfarlane, Nell


Bryan, Sir Paul
Glyn, Dr Alan
MacGregor, John


Buck, Antony
Goodhew, Victor
MacKay, John (Argyll)


Budgen, Nick
Goodlad, Alastair
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)


Bulmer, Esmond
Gorst, John
McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)


Burden, F. A.
Gow, Ian
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)


Butcher, John
Gower, Sir Raymond
McQuarrie, Albert


Butler, Hon Adam
Gray, Hamlsh
Madel, David


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Greenway, Harry
Major, John


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)
Marland, Paul


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Marlow, Tony


Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)
Grist, Ian
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Grylls, Michael
Marten, Nell (Banbury)


Channon, Paul
Gummer, John Selwyn
Mates, Michael


Chapman, Sydney
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&Ew'll)
Mather, Carol


Churchill, W. S.
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Maude, Rt Hon Angus


Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Hannam, John
Mawby, Ray


Clark, Sir William (Croydon South)
Haselhurst, Alan
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hastings, Stephen
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Cockeram, Eric
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Mayhew, Patrick


Colvin, Michael
Hawksley, Warren
Mellor, David


Cope, John
Hayhoe, Barney
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Cormack, Patrick
Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove & Redditch)


Corrie, John
Heddle, John
Mills, lain (Meriden)







Mills, Peter (West Devon)
Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret


Miscampbell, Norman
Rees-Davies, W. R
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Ronton, Tim
Thompson, Donald


Moate, Roger
Rhodes James, Robert
Thorne, Neil (llford South)


Molyneaux, James
Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Thornton, Malcolm


Monro, Hector
Rifkind, Malcolm
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Moore, John
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)


Morgan, Geraint
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Trippler, David


Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)
Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)
Trotter, Neville


Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)
Rost, Peter
van Straubenzee, W R.


Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)
Royle, Sir Anthony
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Mudd, David
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Viggers, Peter


Murphy, Christopher
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman
Waddington, David


Myles, David
Scott, Nicholas
Wakeham, John


Needham, Richard
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Nelson, Anthony
Shelton, William (Streatham)
Walker, Rt Hon Peter (Worcester)


Neubert, Michael
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Walker, Bill (Perth & E Perthshire)


Newton, Tony
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br'hills)
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Nott, Rt Hon John
Shersby, Michael
Waller, Gary


Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs Sally
Silvester, Fred
Walters, Dennis


Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham
Sims, Roger
Ward, John


Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)
Skeet, T. H. H
Warren, Kenneth


Paisley, Rev Ian
Speed, Keith
Watson, John


Parkinson, Cecil
Speller, Tony
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Parris, Matthew
Spence, John
Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd & Stev'nage)


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)
Wheeler, John


Patten, John (Oxford)
Sproat, lain
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Partie, Geoffrey
Squire, Robin
Whitney, Raymond


Pawsey, James
Stanbrook, Ivor
Wickenden, Keith


Percival, Sir Ian
Stanley, John
Wiggin, Jerry


Pink, R. Bonner
Steen, Anthony
Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)


Pollock, Alexander
Stevens, Martin
Winterton, Nicholas


Porter, George
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Wolfson, Mark


Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)
Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Stokes, John
Younger, Rt Hon George


Price, David (Eastleigh)
Stradling, Thomas, J.



Prior, Rt Hon James
Tapsell, Peter
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Proctor, K. Harvey
Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)
Mr. Spencer le Marchant and


Raison, Timothy
Taylor, Teddy (Southend East)
Mr. Anthony Berry.


Rathbone, Tim
Temple-Morris, Peter



Question accordingly negatived.


Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 32 (Questions on amendments):—


The House divided: Ayes 293, Noes 227.




Division No. 340]
AYES
[7.15 pm


Adley, Robert
Brittan, Leon
Cranborne, Viscount


Aitken, Jonathan
Brooke, Hon Peter
Crouch, David


Alexander, Richard
Brotherton, Michael
Dean, Paul (North Somerset)


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'thorpe)
Dickens, Geoffrey


Ancram, Michael
Browne, John (Winchester)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Arnold, Tom
Bruce-Gardyne, John
Dover, Denshore


Aspinwall, Jack
Bryan, Sir Paul
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Buck, Antony
Dunn, Robert (Dartford)


Atkins, Robert (Preston North)
Budgen, Nick
Durant, Tony


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Bulmer, Esmond
Dykes, Hugh


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Burden, F. A.
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Butcher, John
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)


Bell, Sir Ronald
Butler, Hon Adam
Eggar, Timothy


Bendall, Vivian
Cadbury, Jocelyn
Elliott, Sir William


Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)
Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Eyre, Reginald


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Best, Keith
Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)
Fairgrieve, Russell


Bevan, David Gilroy
Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Faith, Mrs Sheila


Bitten, Rt Hon John
Channon, Paul
Farr, John


Biggs-Davison, John
Chapman, Sydney
Fell, Anthony


Blackburn, John
Churchill, W. S.
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Blaker, Peter
Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Finsberg, Geoffrey


Body, Richard
Clark, Sir William (Croydon South)
Fisher, Sir Nigel


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Cockeram, Eric
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)
Colvin, Michael
Fookes, Miss Janet


Bowden, Andrew
Cope, John
Forman, Nigel


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Cormack, Patrick
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Bright, Graham
Corrie, John
Fox, Marcus


Brinton, Tim
Costain, A. P.
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)







Fry, Peter
McQuarrie, Albert
Royle, Sir Anthony


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Madel, David
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Gardner, Edward (South Fylde)
Major, John
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Marland, Paul
Scott, Nicholas


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Marlow, Tony
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Glyn, Or Alan
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Goodhew, Victor
Marten, Nell (Banbury)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Goodlad, Alastair
Mates, Michael
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br'hills)


Gorst, John
Mather, Carol
Shersby, Michael


Gow, lan
Maude, Rt Hon Angus
Silvester, Fred


Gower, Sir Raymond
Mawby, Ray
Sims, Roger


Gray, Hamish
Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Skeet, T. H. H.


Greenway, Harry
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Speed, Keith


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)
Mayhew, Patrick
Speller, Tony


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Mellor, David
Spence, John


Grist, Ian
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)


Grylls, Michael
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove & Redditch)
Sproat, lain


Gummer, John Selwyn
Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Squire, Robin


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&Ew'll)
Mills, Peter (West Devon)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Miscampbell, Norman
Stanley, John


Hannam, John
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Steen, Anthony


Haselhurst, Alan
Moate, Roger
Stevens, Martin


Hastings, Stephen
Molyneaux, James
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Monro, Hector
Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)


Hawksley, Warren
Moore, John
Stokes, John


Hayhoe, Barney
Morgan, Geraint
Stradling Thomas, J.


Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)
Tapsell, Peter


Heddle, John
Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)
Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)


Henderson, Barry
Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)
Taylor, Teddy (Southend East)


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Mudd, David
Temple-Morris, Peter


Hicks, Robert
Murphy, Christopher
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Myles, David
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)


Hill, James
Needham, Richard
Thompson, Donald


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)
Nelson, Anthony
Thorne, Neil (llford South)


Holland, Philip (Carlton)
Neubert, Michael
Thornton, Malcolm


Hooson, Tom
Newton, Tony
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Hordern, Peter
Normanton, Tom
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Nott, Rt Hon John
Trippier, David


Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildford)
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs Sally
Trotter, Neville


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Hurd, Hon Douglas
Paisley, Rev Ian
Viggers, Peter


Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Parkinson, Cecil
Waddington, David


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Parris, Matthew
Wakeham, John


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Patten, John (Oxford)
Walker, Rt Hon Peter (Worcester)


Kitson, Sir Timothy
Pattie, Geoffrey
Walker, Bill (Perth & E Perthshire)


Knox, David
Pawsey, James
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Lamont, Norman
Percival, Sir Ian
Waller, Gary


Lang, Ian
Pink, R. Bonner
Walters, Dennis


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Pollock, Alexander
Ward, John


Latham, Michael
Porter, George
Warren, Kenneth


Lawrence, Ivan
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)
Watson, John


Lawson, Nigel
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Lee, John
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Wells, Bowen (Herl'rd & Stev'naga)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Prior, Rt Hon James
Wheeler, John


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Proctor, K. Harvey
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Raison, Timothy
Whitney, Raymond


Lloyd, Ian (Havant & Waterloo)
Rathbone, Tim
Wickenden, Keith


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)
Wiggin, Jerry


Loveridge, John
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)


Luce, Richard
Renten, Tim
Winterton, Nicholas


Lyell, Nicholas
Rhodes James, Robert
Wolfaon, Mark


Macfarlane, Nell
Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Young, Sir George (Acton)


MacGregor, John
Rifkind, Malcolm
Younger, Rt Hon George


MacKay, John (Argyll)
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey



Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and


NcNair-Wilson. Patrick (New Forest)
Rost, Peter
Mr. Anthony Berry.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Beith, A. J.
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)


Adams, Allen
Benn Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Campbell, Ian


Allaun, Frank
Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Alton, David
Bidwell, Sydney
Canavan, Dennis


Anderson, Donald
Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Cant, R. B.


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Carmichael, Neil


Armstrong, Rt. Hon Ernest
Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur (M'brough)
Carter-Jones, Lewis


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Bradley, Tom
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)


Ashton, Joe
Bray, Dr Jeremy
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)


Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Coleman, Donald


Bagler, Gordon A. T.
Brown, Ron (Edinburgh, Leith)
Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Buchan, Norman
Conlan, Bernard


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Cook, Robin F.







Cowans, Harry
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Prescott, John


Craigen, J. M. (Glasgow, Maryhill)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)
Price, Christopher (Lewisham West)


Crowther, J. S.
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Race, Reg


Cryer, Bob
Janner, Hon Greville
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds South)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Richardson, Jo


Cunningham, George (Islington S)
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Cunningham, Dr John (Whitehaven)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rhondda)
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)


Davidson, Arthur
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Robertson, George


Davis, Clinton, (Hackney Central)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Robinson, Geoffery (Coventry NW)


Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)
Kerr, Russell
Rodgers, Rt Hon William


Deakins Eric
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Rooker, J. W.


Dempsey, James
Kinnock, Nell
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Dewar, Donald
Lamborn, Harry
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Dixon, Donald
Lamond, James
Rowlands, Ted


Dobson, Frank
Leadbitter, Ted
Ryman, John


Dormand, Jack
Leighton, Ronald
Sandelson, Neville


Douglas, Dick
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)
Sever, John


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Sheerman, Barry


Dubs, Alfred
Litherland, Robert
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert (A'ton-u-L)


Dunn, James A. (Liverpool, Kirkdale)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Shore, Rt Hon Peter (Step and Pop)


Dunnett, Jack
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Short, Mrs Renée


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Lyons, Edward (Bradford West)
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Eadie, Alex
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Silverman, Julius


Eastham, Ken
McCartney, Hugh
Skinner, Dennis


Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Smith, Rt Hon J. (North Lanarkshire)


English, Michael
McElhone, Frank
Snape, Peter


Ennals, Rt Hon David
McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Soley, Clive


Evans, loan (Abordare)
McKelvey, William
Spearing, Nigel


Evans, John (Newton)
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Spriggs, Leslie


Ewing, Harry
Maclennan, Robert
Stallard, A. W.


Faulds, Andrew
McNally, Thomas
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald (W Isles)


Field, Frank
McNamara, Kevin
Stoddart, David


Fitch, Alan
McWilliam, John
Strang, Gavin


Flannery, Martin
Magee, Bryan
Straw, Jack


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Marshall, David (Gl'sgow, Shettles'n)
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Ford, Ben
Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Forrester, John
Maxton, John
Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)


Foster, Derek
Maynard, Miss Joan
Tilley, John


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Meacher, Michael
Torney, Tom


Freud, Clement
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Mikardo, Ian
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


George, Bruce
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Walker, Rt Hon Harold (Doncaster)


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
Watkins, David


Gourlay, Harry
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
Weetch, Ken


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Welsh, Michael


Grant, John (Islington C)
Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)
White, Frank R. (Bury & Radcliffe)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Morton, George
Whitehead, Phillip


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland
Whitlock, William


Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Newens, Stanley
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Haynes, Frank
Ogden, Eric
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee East)


Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)
O'Halloran, Michael
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Holland, Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhall)
O'Neill, Martin
Winnick, David


Home Robertson, John
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Woodall, Alec


Homewood, William
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Woolmer, Kenneth


Hooley, Frank
Palmer, Arthur
Wrigglesworth, lan


Horam, John
Park, George



Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Parker, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Hucklield, Les
Parry, Robert
Mr. James Tinn and


Hudson, Davies, Gwilym Ednyfed
Penhaligon, David
Mr. Joseph Dean.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. Deputy Speaker forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to, pursuant to Standing Order No. 18 (Business of Supply).

Resolved,
That this House welcomes the presence of overseas students, including those financed from the aid programme, at British institutions of further and higher education but agrees that as a general rule courses should be paid for on an economic cost basis.

Orders of the Day — LOITERING WITH INTENT

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I beg to move,
That this House notes with approval the Second Report from the Home Affairs Committee, Session 1979–80 (HC 559).
I shall put my arguments briefly, as befits a debate of less than three hours' duration.
Last year the new system of Select Committees was set up to cover individual Departments. It was hailed by the Leader of the House as revolutionary. That was a description upon which I cast doubts at the time, on the ground that at the end of the day it is for the Government to govern. Nevertheless, the report in general and the work of the Select Committee are important in relation to the procedures of the House.
What is of fuller significance is that the report reflected almost unanimously the views of hon. Members from both sides of the House. No Select Committee report should be ignored, but one as powerfully supported as this one may be given more weight than usual.
Parliamentary time is, of course, precious and in our view no time can be found in this Session. As a former Home Secretary, I am aware that the Government will need to consult. The Law Commission report is also awaited and, therefore, our motion really asks for approval in the next Session, which will start in November. Our motion can have no other meaning, given the procedures of the House.
On the matter of " sus " and race relations, I wish to make clear, as did the Committee, that we are not arguing that the law should be tailored to meet the needs of one section of the population, as suggested by the Police Federation. The Select Committee report has examined " sus " in its broadest context. That is as it should be. In this respect, and In another context, I say to the Home Secretary that I ended detention in Northern Ireland not because I was in favour of terrorism but because I believed that there were better ways, through the law, of bringing people to justice.
In Northern Ireland I ended political status because I regarded politically motivated crime as being no different from any other crime. Among the many

things that attracted me to the report was its objectivity. It said about " sus ":
The direct effects of its repeal may come as a disappointment 
to those concerned with the race relations aspect.
The report went on:
 The repeal of ' sus ' may therefore do no more than create a marginally more favourable climate for improvements in the relationship between the police and the black community.
I have moved that the House notes the report with approval. My position is clear, but I may well be asked whether that position has changed in the last year. For some time I have had in my possession a note made on 28 March 1979 by my private office. The note refers to the departmental working party report and says:
The working party, therefore, recommends abolishing the relevant part of section 4 of the 1824 Act and replacing it with a new offence with the same essential features.
The note goes on to detail Government acceptance of this and the need to await the Law Commission report on the law of " attempt." The final words of the note in relation to the then Government were:
 The Government also wishes to consider any views which may be expressed on the way in which the present offence is used—and on the need for a new offence.
I was not convinced of the need for a new offence but, of course, the Law Commission report had to be taken into account.
The Select Committee report convinced me that whatever other changes are recommended, " sus " should go. I wish to discuss two matters only in the report. It states:
 The most powerful argument against ' sus ' is that it is a fundamentally unsatisfactory offence in principle. It is not generally acceptable in English law to exact penalties for forming a criminal intention. The intending criminal has usually to carry out some act as an attempt to implement his intention.
The report goes on to discuss conspiracy. A leader in The Times stated:
 It offends against the important principles of justice in two ways. It makes mere intent criminal and subject to imprisonment. It allows proof of previous convictions to be introduced at the trial as evidence of that intent.
That is the legal side. It is difficult for non-lawyers.
How will the police operate if and when the "sus" law goes? It will not present a problem in all parts of the country, because the " sus " law is not used in all parts. It is apparently not used in Scotland. Any argument that the law is indispensable cannot apply to the country as a whole. There are general powers under the 1967 Criminal Law Act under which police officers can act if they have reasonable grounds for suspicion that an offence is being actively contemplated. Section 2 of that Act applies. I do not call in aid local legislation, because it is too important a matter to be left to local legislation.
I agree with the report that the gap left when " sus " is ended will be insignificant. The Times leader is relevant. It states:
The law of attempted theft could be used more often than it is. ' Sus ' is charged rather than attempt because it is easier to obtain a conviction. ' Sus ' is used largely against suspected car thieves and pickpockets. It is not designed to stop muggers.
Mugging is not a legal concept but we all know what it means. The leader continues:
 The problem of street crime is a real one.
On that, I agree with the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, for whom I have particular respect, but I do not agree with his conclusions in this respect. I think that there are other ways of dealing with the problem, including using the laws on theft and robbery. We must also consider the possibility of having more police on the streets.

Mr. Tony Marlow: Since the right hon. Gentleman was in Government he has changed his mind as a result of reading the report. Sir David McNee has said that in many cases the "suspected person" offence is the only one that allows intervention by the police. What does the right hon. Gentleman say to that?

Mr. Rees: I thought that I had indicated that what the hon. Gentleman says is not right. To use this type of law, which is contrary to the spirit of English law, is the wrong way to tackle the problem. It is a most important point. As I said of Northern Ireland, one wins a battle not by expediency but by using the normal procedures of English law.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Criminal intent is at the heart of the matter, and it is enormously important that a former Home Secretary's views should be understood clearly. The right hon. Member says that he dislikes—as the Committee dislikes—anybody being punished for an intention rather than an action. If there is evidence only of criminal intent to blow people up, to take hostages, or to assassinate, what is the right hon. Gentleman's view? He made a general statement. Will he modify his statement with that in mind?

Mr. Rees: The "sus" laws have not been used for any of the circumstances mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. There are other ways by which they can be dealt with through the law.
I hope that the Government will accept our motion. It was not our intention that on the criminal law, which is so important, we should divide in this way. It is better that we should not. There is no need to vote on the timing. I state categorically that we are not asking for this to be put right in weeks or months. We are talking about the next Session of Parliament, by which time there will have been consultations, and the Law Commission report will be available.

Mr. Edward Lyons: In view of the last intervention, will my right hon. Friend make it plain that "sus " is not used in relation to violence? Will he make it clear that it is used in relation to alleged street offences involving property and that it has nothing to do with the examples given by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths)?

Mr. Rees: If I had thought that even in the short term we were making terrorism more possible, I would have weighed my words heavily. We are not doing that. We concede the timing question. However, we do not depart from the conclusion that the House should approve the report so that the Government can put proposals to the House after they have considered it.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. William Whitelaw): I beg to move, in line 1, to leave out from


"That to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
 this House welcomes the important contribution made by the Report of the Home Affairs Committee relating to section 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824, accepts the need for a change in the law, and looks forward to the imminent publication of the Law Commission's Report on Attempt and to the public response to these reports, as providing the basis for an early decision as to the best way of reforming the law while ensuring adequate protection for the public.
The amendment accepts the need for a change in the law, but points to factors other than those in the report that the Government will need to take into account in deciding the best way forward.
I have no desire to vote on the matter. However, I cannot regard it as a matter of semantics to say that I cannot approve the report, because approving the report would, however, one looks at it, mean immediate legislation without taking the other factors into account. I could not conceivably do that. When I have been through my argument I think that the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) will see that much the best way is for him and his right hon. and hon. Friends to accept the amendment, which goes a long way to meet the points that he made.
I join the right hon. Gentleman in welcoming the publication of the report of the Select Committee on race relations and the " sus " law. This debate follows quickly on the publication of the Select Committee's report and so provides an early opportunity for the views of the House as a whole to find expression. The Committee has performed a valuable service to the House in undertaking its examination of the suspected person offence and producing a report which deals so clearly with a complex and difficult issue.
The Government are grateful for the analysis made by the Committee of the principles underlying the offence and of the arguments which were advanced in evidence for and against its retention. It is helpful to point out, as the Committee did, that the offence is one for which, over the country as a whole, comparatively few prosecutions are brought. It is true that, as the Committee acknowledges, abolition of the offence could be only one factor in the efforts to develop trust between the police and the black community. Yet I fully recognise and

will take into account the strong feeling among ethnic minority group leaders that positive action on the " sus " law would be of considerable help.

Mr. Allan Roberts: Does the Home Secretary agree that not only is the incidence of prosecutions important, but that in places such as Merseyside the police use the law to justify stopping and searching black youths, who consider such action to be harassment? Is he aware that it might not result in a prosecution? If a breakdown in law and order is to occur, it is likely to be on Merseyside. The conflict that exists between the police and young coloured people as a result of the law being on the statute book contributes to the possibility of a breakdown in law and order.

Mr. Whitelaw: I note the hon. Gentleman's remarks. I hope that he will accept that it is right for me to stick to a brief and, I hope, clear exposition of my position, because so many hon. Members wish to speak. If I become involved in extra arguments in answer to interventions I shall prevent many of those who wish to speak from doing so. I hope that the House will respect my position.
I wish to repeat one sentence that I stated earlier, because it is important. I fully recognise, and will take into account, the strong feeling among ethnic minority group leaders that positive action on the " sus " law would be of considerable help. At the same time, I welcome—as I know the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis does—the Committee's confirmation that there has been no deliberate racial bias on the part of the Metropolitan Police in the use of the offence. By stating these things in the way that it has in the report, the Committee has made it that much easier to focus on the real issues and to consider the way ahead.
In the opening paragraph of its report the Committee notes that the evidence that it received was
 overwhelmingly in favour of the repeal of this provision.
The Committee, after reviewing all the evidence, concluded that it also supported repeal of the offence. Such a recommendation must carry weight. The Committee's general line of argument deserves most serious consideration. I wish to repeat that, in the light of the


report, the Government accept in principle the need for some change in the law. None the less, the issue is not altogether straightforward.
I appreciate the force of the argument that the existence of " sus " inhibits, to some extent, the improvement of relations between the police and ethnic minorities.

Mr. Marlow: Mr. Marlow rose——

Mr. Whitelaw: If I continue to give way I shall prevent others from having a chance to speak. If my hon. Friend will not consider me discourteous—and he knows that I usually give way—on this occasion I wish to make my speech without giving way. I think that that will be fair to everyone.
As the Committee points out in paragraph 29 of its report—and as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, South recognised—that is not, in itself, a conclusive argument for repeal. The Committee attaches great weight to considerations of principle, but gives less weight than many of us might do to cases that should surely continue to lie within the scope of the criminal law, but would no longer do so if the Committee's report were implemented as it stands. As Home Secretary, I must consider all these aspects of the question, and I cannot shirk my responsibility for ensuring that the public is protected.
Accordingly, I have to say that I cannot advise the House to accept the recommendation which the Select Committee has made for the immediate and total repeal of the " sus " law without provision to fill any of the gaps in the criminal law which would be left as a result. What kind of gap would simple repeal open up? How, for example, should the police deal with a case when they see somebody try car door handles, or when they find somebody attempting to steal from someone else's handbag, which turns out to have been empty?
That raises the question of the extent of the law of attempt, which, as the Select Committee mentions in paragraph 37 of its report, the Law Commission has been studying. Hon. Members will wish to know that the Law Commission's report on that subject was submitted to my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor some weeks ago and has also been

made available to me. In the ordinary course of events I would have hoped that it could have been published before the date of this debate but there has been little time since notice of the debate was given, and with the difficulties that are affecting Government printing generally at the moment, and of which the House will be aware, that has not been possible.
In these unusual circumstances, I think that it would be proper for me, and fair to the House, to refer to some of the Law Commission's proposals so far as they bear on the subject matter of our debate today. As the Select Committee recognises, the Law Commission's study is relevant in that there is a defect in the existing law of attempt which, in practice, is partly remedied by the use of " sus ". I refer here to the kind of case described in paragraph 37(b) of the Select Committee's report, in which an attempt is made to steal from a bag or pocket which is in fact empty. As the law stands, a charge of attempted theft in these circumstances may not succeed. Hon. Members may like to know that, if the Law Commission's proposals for changing the present law were adopted, such conduct would clearly constitute attempted theft.
The Select Committee says that that is merely a technical difficulty. So in one sense it is, in that it is indeed a complex area of the law, and I have no doubt that the Law Commission's proposals on this and other aspects of the law of attempt will give rise to a good deal of discussion and comment in legal journals. But to the citizen who needs the protection of the police and the law it is, and will always be, much more than an academic question. There is a real loophole in our law of attempted theft that cannot be dismissed as irrelevant in the present context.
Although I have the advantage of knowing what the Law Commission proposes, I have not yet had time to give proper consideration to its proposals. Nor, until the report has been published, will there be an opportunity for hon. Members, the legal profession or the press and public generally, to form any judgment upon the changes in the law that it recommends. I do not see how any responsible Government could proceed to legislate on " sus ", or advise the House to accept any private Member's


proposals for legislation on the subject, until there has been time to consider the Select Committee's recommendation in the wider context of the criminal law as a whole, both as it now stands and as it would be altered if the Law Commission's proposals were implemented.

Mr. John Morris: Does it not boil down to the fact that the only gap in the law which the Home Secretary contemplates is an attempted theft from a handbag or a pocket which happens to be empty?

Mr. Whitelaw: That is not the case. I shall come to further matters that are relevant to that point. What I said about the Law Commission is valid.
While we are looking at loopholes that might be left by the repeal of " sus ", we must look also at the kind of case described by the Select Committee in paragraph 37(a) of its report—where someone is found attempting to enter a locked car, but his precise intentions are uncertain. Would it be satisfactory to leave such conduct entirely unrestricted by the criminal law? I have to tell the House that the Law Commission's proposals are unlikely to make much difference in a case of this kind. Again, to people whose property is interfered with in this way, the uncertainty of the law is much more than a technical problem. It may be that in these and possible other instances, if " sus " were repealed, the ambit of the criminal law would in other respects need to be enlarged.
It would not meet the widespread criticism of " sus " if it were repealed, and then in substance re-enacted under a new name. But, on reflection, there might well be general acceptance that the repeal of " sus " would need to be accompanied by other changes to the existing law in order to ensure proper protection to the public.
Those are questions that we shall need to consider carefully, taking account of the views of all those concerned—including, of course, those of the police, on whom ultimately falls the burden of enforcing the laws that we choose to enact, and on whom the blame falls if the streets of our cities become unsafe for ordinary law-abiding people.

Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann: Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann (Mitcham and Morden) rose——

Mr. Whitelaw: I have tried very hard to continue with my speech. I shall give way once more only.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: Taking account of the points made by the Home Secretary, does he not think that it would be desirable, in the interim between further legislation, for him to give advice to chief constables throughout the country not to use the " sus " law for an experimental period? We could then see whether there was any justification for the alarm that has been expressed. We could see also whether the crime figures increased as has been suggested.

Mr. Whitelaw: As Home Secretary, I could not contemplate advising chief constables not to enforce the law as laid down by the House. That would put us all in a very difficult position.
The Committee stressed the importance, as a crime prevention measure, of the presence of uniformed policemen on the streets, to which the right hon. Gentleman also referred. I would not dissent from that. On the contrary, we have made significant progress in increasing the strength of the police service. But at the same time we must ensure that these officers have adequate powers.
To sum up, I welcome the Select Committee's report as an important contribution to the material on which the Government and Parliament will have to take a decision about the future of the suspected person offence. I await with interest the contributions that will be made by hon. Members taking part in this debate. I hope that in two or three weeks we shall see the publication of the Law Commission's report, and I look forward to the views that will be expressed, both in and outside Parliament, particularly on the aspects of the Law Commission's proposals that are relevant to the subject that we are discussing today.
Meanwhile, the Home Office will be interested to receive any views both on the Select Committee's report and on the question of what other changes in the criminal law ought to be made if its recommendations were accepted—in particular, from magistrates, from the police, from bodies concerned with race relations, including the Commission for Racial Equality, and from the legal profession.
In what I have said today I have tried to show that the problem is intricate—perhaps more so at points than the Select Committee indicated—and as Home Secretary I must, as so often, balance conflicting considerations. But on one point we are quite clear. The law is not satisfactory as it is and must be changed. Therefore, the Government intend to reach an early decision on how that should be done.
On that basis, I hope that the House will appreciate that the best way forward is to support the amendment in the names of my right hon. Friends and myself.

Mr. Arthur Davidson: It is rare that any law should be so disliked by so many people who come into contact with it. The " sus " law is disliked not only by those who are charged under it but by the Bar, by solicitors, and by large sections of magistrates who have to administer it. The reason why it is held in such disrepute is that many people rightly regard it as unfair and unjust.
The person who is charged under the " sus " law provisions is charged not with committing or attempting to commit an offence but with the suspicion of possibly forming an intention to commit an offence. Incidentally, he may subsequently drop that intention or form an even firmer intention not to commit the offence. Yet he is arrested, charged and frequently convicted on suspicion—and suspicion alone—and on the evidence not of independent witnesses but of two police officers.
Since the vast majority of those who are charged with the offence are young people—frequently young black people, whose first contact it is with the law—it is not surprising, though it may be regrettable, that they should hold the law in such disrepute, and feel that it is unfair and that the police and the courts are not operating in an impartial manner. They are convicted not because someone has said " I saw you attempt to put your hand in somebody's pocket " or " I saw you put your hand in somebody's pocket and take something out "—the case is not proved in that clear and impartial way—but because police officers have seen them hanging around or acting in a way

that has given them some cause for suspicion.
I do not suggest that some of those who are charged with suspicion—the " sus " offence—might not at some stage have subsequently formed the intention to commit the offence—it would be naive and foolish to put forward that argument—but what I think impressed the Select Committee was that a large number of those who have been arested, charged and convicted of the offence might never have committed the offence at all. None the less, they have been convicted of a criminal offence and have had a conviction recorded against their names for the rest of their lives.

Mr. Delwyn Williams: Has the hon. and learned Gentleman any details of how many police officers have been charged with giving false evidence in these cases? I should have thought that the courts would be full of police officers arrested and charged with giving perjured evidence if what he said were right.

Mr. Davidson: Many people are acquitted of all kinds of criminal offences. They are acquitted presumably because the jury are not satisfied, amongst other things, with the evidence put forward by the police. In the " sus " case there is no jury. There is no right of trial by jury, because it is not an indictable offence. But merely because someone is acquitted does not mean that the police will be charged with putting forward wrongful evidence. With respect, that was not a pertinent intervention. It in no way weakens the case against getting rid of this objectionable law. This law is objectionable to large sections of the community and it should not remain on the statute book for one day longer than is necessary.

Sir Graham Page: The House must be grateful to the Opposition for choosing to debate the report of one of the 12 Select Committees set up to act as parliamentary watchdogs on behalf of the House over the working of Government Departments. Of course, I am particularly happy that they have chosen the report from the Select Committee on Home Affairs. I think this dispels some of the fears that we had that the Select Committees might be toiling away in vain


because time would not be found to debate their reports in the House. Therefore, I repeat, I am particularly glad that this report is being debated today.
I could have hoped that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary might have used that generous broad brush that he is so magnificently capable of using on occasions and said that he approved the report and explained his ifs and buts in his speech rather than putting them on the Order Paper and embarrassing some of us who put our names to the report.
I should say at the outset that I am not inclined to support what I think is a departmental dilution, even to the extent of dissolution, of the recommendations in the report. My right hon. Friend's speech was far stronger in support of the report than the amendment that he has put on the Order Paper. I appreciate that he has been advised to be cautious about the word " immediate ". There are certain things to be done before the " sus " law should be abolished. I assure my right hon. Friend on behalf of the Committee that he can take that word " immediate " as literally as we take your word, Mr. Deputy Speaker, when you ask the Whip " What day? " and he says " Tomorrow, Sir ". Of course, when we say " immediate " there is much to be done. I refer to paragraph 28 of the report where, in the heavy print of a recommendation, it is stated that, " fortified by " the recommendations,
 we recommend the early repeal of ' sus '.
Need we be so pedantic about the use of the word " immediate " or " early "? Of course we must have time to consider the form of the repeal and the parliamentary programme for it. We must also have time to consider the Law Commission's report. The Select Committee's report refers to that fact. We thought then that, whatever the Law Commision brought forward, it would be on technical points of law and that it would not affect the general principle that the " sus " law should be abolished. That provision could be brought in at the same time. Like the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), I too would call the autumn " immediate " with regard to the proceedings of the House.
The report originated in and the evidence was taken by the Race Relations and Immigration Sub-Committee of the

Select Committee, which was chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Padding-ton (Mr. Wheeler). That explains why the investigation started its life entitled " Race Relations and the Sus Law ".
Paragraph 2 of the report makes clear that when the investigation had been embarked upon it was not simply a matter of race relations, but a much wider issue, and the report deals with it in that way. It is only comparatively recently that the " sus " law has become associated with the coloured community. " Sus " has been suspect—I did not mean to make a pun—and it has been a matter of concern and anxiety for many decades. About four or five years ago it became associated with race relations. The expression of anxiety has not simply been caused by campaigns such as " Scrap Sus ". Anxiety is being and has been expressed by those people who see the results of " sus " arrests—those people who have to conduct " sus " cases in the magistrates' court, or the magistrates themselves. We must remember that such cases are heard only in the magistrates' courts, except when there is an appeal. Anxiety is also expressed by those who see the results of " sus " convictions. Those people are expressing anxiety to an increasing degree. It might be said that that is the blunt end of the problem. What about the sharp end of the problem? What about the police and potential victims? Would it not take away the power of the police in the prevention of crime if we abolished the " sus " law?
Some astonishing evidence was revealed to the Select Committee. The Metropolitan Police gave evidence to the Committee, saying that it wanted to retain " sus ". In the metropolis, one police division differs from another in the extreme in its use of " sus ", and in the rest of the country only Merseyside and Greater Manchester use " sus " to any extent. It is used differently in different police divisions, and in different police forces. In some cases, plain clothes police make " sus " arrests, and in other cases uniformed officers make the arrests. If it is such an important weapon in the eyes of the police for the prevention of crime, one would have expected that it would be used extensively over the whole country, and in a uniform way, but that is far from the case.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir G. Page: I would rather not give way, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me. There are many hon. Members who wish to speak, and I shall be as brief as I can.
The use of plain clothes officers was dealt with by the Select Committee, and it is of great importance. If uniformed police only were used, I do not believe that a potential bag snatcher would reason out in his mind " They are using only uniformed police. I cannot see a uniform anywhere. Therefore, I can snatch that bag and get away with it." I do not believe that we need fear that. I am sure that if a uniformed policeman replaced the plain clothes man in these duties, his presence would be a real deterrent to street crime—far more than the fear of " sus " arrest from a disguised policeman.
This so-called weapon in the hands of the police for the prevention of crime is a boomerang. The resentment which its use generates causes it to cut down the co-operation and the good will of the public—I mean the public, not the criminal—on whom the police must rely in carrying out their duties.
I wish that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary had noted with approval the report of the Select Committee. I do not object to the words at the end of the amendment:
 the basis for an early decision as to the best way of reforming the law while ensuring adequate protection for the public 
provided that that means only the form and trimmings of the repeal. My right hon. Friend asks a lot of me, as the Chairman who is presenting the Committee's report to the House, when he asks me to do nothing more than look on this as a contribution relating to " sus ". He is asking a lot when he asks me to accept it as nothing more than showing a need for a change in the law without a commitment to what that change may be, and when he asks me to pledge myself to do no more than look forward to the Law Commission report, and to public response. How does one ascertain public response, except at a general election? I hope he does not mean that we will

have to wait that long to accept the recommendations of the report. I hope that the House will approve the report today.

Mr. David Alton: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Crosby (Sir G. Page) on his enlightened speech, and I also congratulate his Committee.
I begin my contribution with the final words of the second report of the Home Affairs Committee, which state:
 the repeal of ' sus ' signifies the removal of a piece of law which is contrary to the freedom and liberty of the individual.
That sums up many of the arguments involved in this legislation.
This is not the first time that Parliament has discussed the " sus " laws. On 14 December 1978, when the previous Labour Government were in power, my noble Friend Lord Avebury introduced a Bill to abolish the criminal offence of being a suspected person. He then cited the organisations that had condemned " sus "—the National Association of Probation Officers, the Church of England, and the Catholic Commission for Racial Justice. He then listed the reasons why " sus " should be scrapped. He said that the Act was archaic in its language. For instance section 4 reads:
 Every suspected person or reputed thief frequenting or loitering in any river, canal or negotiable stream, dock or basin or any quay, wharf or warehouse near or adjoining thereto, or any street, highway, or avenue leading thereto, or any place of public resort, or any avenue leading thereto, or any street, or any highway, or any place adjacent to a street or highway, with intent to commit an arrestable offence.
I do not apologise for reading that, because it is right to remind hon. Members that this 150-year-old gobbledegook brings the law into disrepute.
Secondly, there is no proof whatsoever that the Act is a deterrent to street crime. The Reverend Jack Pawsey, of Camber-well, said:
 It is the reverse of a deterrent. Faced with a charge and conviction for something he never did, the accused joins the growing band of young people for whom it is irrelevant whether something is lawful or not. This builds up villains.
In other words, many young people feel that if they are going to be arrested anyway it does not make much difference


whether they are arrested on suspicion or whether they actually commit the crime. The Reverend Jack Pawsey also indicated that " sus " did nothing to improve relations between ethnic monorities and the police. Therefore, Lord Avebury, on 14 December 1978, argued that " sus " schould be scrapped and the charge of attempted theft be used instead.
I remind the House that this debate was initiated in another place under a Labour Government, and yet the Bill was defeated, in spite of strong speeches in its support by a former Lord Chancellor. The Minister opposed the Bill, and the Labour Party was noticeable for its absence in the Lobby. So there are some grounds for cynicism concerning this debate. I have often noticed that the Labour Party says very different things in opposition from what it does in government.
Nothing has changed now from what happened then. [Interruption.] The report of the Select Committee is, of course, welcome, but it adds little to the conclusions of the Runnymede Trust and other independent bodies. All that has been achieved by doing nothing for 18 months is further tension between the police and ethnic groups. It is for that reason that again I echo the sentiments expressed by the right hon. Member for Crosby in hoping that this debate will not delay or halt the speedy implementation of the recommendations of this Committee.

Mr. David Mellor: I do not think that on this topic the hon. Gentleman has the expertise that he claims. He is certainly not advancing the case that most of us accept as a reason why the " sus " laws should go. Particularly, he is not advancing the case in the report that he has so commended, because that said that it would make only the most marginal difference on racial grounds. Of course, the real objections to the " sus " laws, as one would have hoped the hon. Gentleman would know before he intervened in the debate, are the jurisprudential objections to which other speakers have alluded.

Mr. Alton: We obviously represent two very different sorts of constituency. In the city that I represent this law causes major problems. The right hon. Member for Crosby said that although the Act is not used elsewhere there are major problems

caused by its use in Greater Manchester, in Merseyside and in London.
I was coming to the main thrust of my argument, which concerns the way in which this law affects good race relations. In his intervention, the hon. Gentleman tried to pretend that this had no effect, because relatively, it was so little used. That is not true. I have carefully looked at the statistics today. If the hon. Gentleman refers to them, he will see the number of arrests over the last four years under the " sus " laws.
Nearly half of the people arrested in the Metropolitan area of London in each of the last four years were people from the ethnic minority groups. For instance, up to the third quarter of 1979, 817 white-skinned Europeans were arrested, as compared with a full total of 1,482, leaving 665 from ethnic minority groups. The same pattern existed in the previous years.

Mr. Marlow: I think that the crux of the racial point that people try to make is whether the relationship between the police and racial minorities, particularly coloured youths, is worse in those areas of the country where the " sus " laws are used, as opposed to other areas where there are large racial minorities, including young people, where the " sus " laws are not used. The case is not proven in that direction.

Mr. Alton: I assure the hon. Gentleman that even if it is only in the minds of those concerned, it is like a running sore in the minds of the black community. Worse than that, I think that there is sufficient evidence available, from the figures that I have quoted, which are available in the Official Report—I can give the hon. Member the details later—conclusively to show that the black minority groups are far more seriously disadvantaged by these laws than are white groups.

Mr. Donald Anderson: On a point of clarification, do the figures that the hon. Member has given relate only to arrests, or to those who have been charged? There may be a number of young people who are taken to police stations following arrest, but because the senior police officer present does not want to prefer a charge, they are not charged.

Mr. Alton: The figures relate to arrests. One might well make the point that whether or not persons are charged, one could still claim that it is harassment. Certainly, many people in the black community would say that the laws are being used to their disadvantage.
Of course, the police must have power to deal with street offences. We on the Liberal Bench recognise that the law on attempted theft has got into an unholy mess. Therefore, the Government should introduce statutory reform of attempted theft, so that offenders can be dealt with under an Act which is comprehensible and which also guarantees them the right of jury trial. No one should suggest that the abolition of " sus " will change the relationships between the police and the black community overnight. But it will be a valuable declaration of intent.
Allegations that the police are racist help no one, although it would be naive to pretend that our police officers do not reflect current prejudices. It is to be hoped that the attraction of better police pay will expand the social and intellectual spectrum of police recruitment. People who take such pleasure in sniping at the police from the sidelines should instead join the special constabulary and set a good example in community relations. We want to blur the lines between the police and the community, and not sharpen them.
I should also like to see more moves towards the sort of community policing experiment pioneered by John Alderson, in Devon and Cornwall. Surely it is self-evident that it is better to prevent crime by having uniformed officers on the beat rather than relying over-heavily on plain-clothes men watching and waiting to catch people, not always being successful, certainly not deterring, and leading offenders on to the escalator of rising crime.
Finally, I must commend the motion. However late, it is vital that "sus" be repealed. I am also delighted by the sympathetic noises from the Government Benches. However, we have heard honeyed words from Governments before. The previous Labour Government waited for Law Commission reports. Previously it was the final report of the working party considering the law on vagrancy. Now the Government amendment talks

once again of the Law Commission's report. Then they will say that they do not have time under the pressure of other legislation that inevitably bogs down Governments.
Labour and Tory Governments promise the earth and in fact do nothing. [Hon. Members: "Oh."] The Government should have given time for a simple Private Member's Bill to abolish " sus " and tidy up attempted theft during this Session, before any more damage could be done.

Mr. Charles Irving: I commence my short contribution by paying a tribute to the police. I think that every citizen of this country is conscious of the difficult job that they carry out and the abuse that is often undeservedly hurled upon them. Nevertheless, I must say straight away that the sooner this law is repealed, the better I shall be pleased. I can see no justification whatever for any indefinite delay. If the Act is deemed to be unfair and unjust now, it has been so since 1824, far too long for injustice to be perpetuated and I regret that I cannot support further procrastination.
Even the Police Federation, in its letter dated 21 May to Members of Parliament, makes the point, among others, that:
 Abolition of the " Sus " law will not affect the right and duty of the police to stop and question people in the street when they have reasonable grounds for doing so.
Most of the publicity surrounding the " sus " law has concerned its effects on relations between the police and members of the black community. I share that concern, but it is important to remember that for many years a number of magistrates and members of the legal profession have considered this offence objectionable on grounds that are unconnected with racial considerations. It punishes behaviour that falls short of any substantive or attempted crime.
In evidence to the Home Affairs Committee both the chairman of the Bar and the chairman of the Criminal Bar Association proposed that the offence should be abolished, and that where circumstances justified charges of attempted theft should be brought instead. As a former magistrate, I find myself in strong agreement with the views expressed by three members of the inner London bench,


who gave oral evidence to the Committee. Mrs. Leah Harvey, chairman of the south central division of inner London, pointed out that the offence gives rise to great anxiety and apprehension among many magistrates. She said that the offence does not cover an attempted crime, but a " pre-attempt." The " sus " law is like no other offence with which magistrates have to deal. In general, the only evidence consists of observations by plain clothes police officers of actions that are open to misinterpretation.
Mrs. Harvey stressed that she was concerned about the offence in general, not solely racial, terms. I strongly support her views and those of her colleagues who appeared before the Committee. They all proposed the abolition of " sus ". Having stressed that I regard the offence as unsatisfactory, for reasons that are unconnected with race, I should point out that the law has an adverse effect on racial harmony, and that that is a further powerful argument for its repeal.
In the Metropolitan Police district, where most " sus " charges are brought, those charges involve a disproportionate number of coloured people, both in relation to their number in the population of London, and in relation to the number arrested for other offences of dishonesty. Of those arrested in the Metropolitan Police district for " sus " in 1979, 40 per cent. were black. The corresponding figure in both 1977 and 1978 was 44 per cent.
The Home Office is well aware that feelings among the black community about the use of " sus " run very high. In its evidence to the Select Committee it referred to the representations that it had received as follows:
 In the areas where the offence is mainly used, police practice has led to widespread feelings of apprehension and resentment on the part of the coloured community. They believe that teenagers are being harassed by the police and that black youngsters using the streets, particularly after dark, are likely to be picked up, however innocent their activities. These feelings extend to parents, church leaders and other leaders of the coloured community. However ill or well founded this apprehension may be, there is no doubt of its existence.
I find it particularly distressing that those apprehensions have led to the breaking down of an attitude among the older generation of West Indians, who supported

the police and demonstrated great faith in the British legal and judicial system.
In short, I consider the case for the abolition of the " sus " offence to be very powerful. It is particularly disturbing that 356 of those who were convicted of " sus " in 1978 received immediate custodial sentences. That is a disturbing and wholly unnecessary addition to the population of our desperately overcrowded prisons. It is a disgraceful situation. I hope that the offence will be abolished, as the Select Committee recommends.

Mr. Edward Lyons: The trouble with " sus " is that people are not convicted for what they have done, or for what they have attempted to do, but for what the court finds they had intended to do. A man of unblemished characted can be sent to prison for three months, without the right of trial by jury, despite the fact that he has not committed or attempted to commit any criminal offence. He is sent to prison merely as a result of evidence to the effect that he intended to do something. In practice, that means that if two police officers saw him do two suspicious things, the burden of proof would fall on the man to establish his innocence. That is why the offence is evil.
The National Association of Probation Officers says that the offence is unsound in principle, open to abuse in practice and contrary to natural justice. Even the Home Office working party recognises that the offence is open to abuse and that it lays the police open to allegations of abuse. The offence was not created to reduce violence, nor is it used as such. The law is used in relation to property. It has nothing to do with potential muggers.
The burden of proof lies the wrong way. There is no right of trial by jury. Mere intention is criminal. In addition, proof of a previous conviction is regarded as assisting in the proof of intent. One therefore realises why some police forces prefer to use this charge when other charges are available. The proceedings are more rapid in a magistrates' court. It is easier to get a conviction in a magistrates' court. Evidence is tested to a lesser extent in a magistrates' court, and it is


easier to satisfy the requirements of the burden of proof in such a court.
Reference has been made to the variations in the incidence of use. Millions of people live in West Yorkshire. In that area about 80 charges are made each year on the grounds of " sus ". That figure has remained about the same for many years. West Yorkshire is little different from Greater Manchester, but the number of charges there has totalled about 240 a year for many years. The Manchester police force uses the " sus " law more often than does the Yorkshire police force. However, their areas are not particularly different. We are dealing with a tradition of use.
The number of " sus " offences has not gone above 3,761 in any year, and 60 per cent. of the charges are made in London. As 40 per cent. of the charges in London are against blacks, that means that one-quarter of all charges nationally are against blacks.
That is a high proportion, and the trouble is that even when a black person is guilty, the black community does not believe that he is guilty. That has some nasty effects, and it is one of the reasons why the offence should be abolished. Be-case of the attitude of the black community to the police, police forces sometimes cannot find enough black people to help them in identification parades.
In addition, if the defence in a criminal case knows that there are to be allegations against the police, it will scarcely ever challenge black people on a jury, because of the damage that " sus " has done in undermining the confidence of the black community in the fairness of the police. The black community may be wrong to take that view, but there is a danger that guilty people may be acquitted by black jurors. That is part of the damage that " sus " has done. If we can remove the offence, we shall prevent a further deterioration in that attitude.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Will my hon. and learned Friend answer the Home Secretary's comment about the inadequacies in the law that would exist if we abolished " sus "? If we need " sus " to deal with picking an empty pocket or trying a car door, why is it that in Yorkshire, which my hon. and

learned Friend knows well, the offences take place, but no " sus " charge is made? There seems to be no differential in the other charges—attempted theft and so on. Why can that happen in West Yorkshire, but not in central London?

Mr. Edward Lyons: When a thief tries a car door, there is nearly always something inside the car, and if he tries to steal something from a handbag, there is usually something in the handbag. In those circumstances, he can be charged with attempted theft. If he has an implement in his pocket he can be charged with carrying housebreaking implements or carrying an offensive weapon. A whole range of charges can be brought against a person in that situation.

Mr. Anderson: Is it not a fact that when a man tries a car door the prosecution is uncertain whether he is attempting to take a conveyance without authority or to steal from the car? There is not an offence sufficiently proximate to either of those offences.

Mr. Lyons: I hear what my hon. Friend says, but I do not want to detain the House, because other hon. Members wish to speak.
We all sympathise with the problems of the police and we all want to restrict crime to a minimum. The problem with " sus " is that large parts of the country manage to do without it. For example, there are courts in West Yorkshire that do not see a " sus " charge for a year on end, yet we do better in the fight against crime than some other areas. When one sees " sus " charges being preferred continually in other areas, one concludes that the police prefer to use an easy way, rather than the more difficult way, to get convictions.
The law on attempted theft is defective in cases when the car or handbag involved is empty, but we can change that law following the new report that we understand is to be published. However, that does not mean that the existing law should remain.
It would assist the police—many of whom give great help to the black community—in their relations with that community, and would uphold the rule of law and proper jurisprudential principles if the offence were abolished.

Mr. John Wheeler: I welcome the opportunity to debate section 4 of the Vagrancy Act and I particularly welcome the speech of the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees). I was also grateful for the response of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, particularly his encouraging statement that an early decision is to be made on the reform of the law.
I am in some difficulty, because at this stage of the debate most of the best parts of the Home Affairs Committee report have been quoted. It is not my intention to go over the report again except to say that it must be clear that, after all these years and after all the controversy that has surrounded the 1824 Act and particularly section 4, the time has come for the charge to be removed from the criminal law. It is as simple and straightforward as that.
I recognise the hesitancy that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary feels about the problem associated with the attempt to steal. That must be investigated and put right. However, that should not preclude the repeal of this charge. The House has already heard from the Bennett committee that up and down the country the police force is able to deal with crime on the streets without using section 4 of the 1824 Act. I remind the House again of the principal reason why the committee concluded that this law should be repealed—that in principle it is fundamentally unsatisfactory to have the offence. It must be wrong in English law to exact a penalty from an individual for forming a criminal intention. The intending criminal has usually to carry out some act as an attempt towards implementing his intention. For that reason this law has been wrong for a very long time.

Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk: It is not just wrong that the penalty only requires a person to have formed a criminal intent. He may not have formed a criminal intent. The position is made worse because it has only to be the opinion of two police officers that he has formed a criminal intent. A man may be tried and possibly convicted on the subjective evidence of two police officers.

Mr. Wheeler: That is correct. The question boils down to interpretation by

witnesses, who are inevitably police officers.
I have sat as an inner London magistrate. I have tried such cases and acquitted. I fully understand the difficulty that magistrates have in deciding guilt or innocence.
With regard to the number of persons sent to prison after conviction, the House should bear in mind that they are sent to prison, not merely because of conviction under section 4 but because of their previous convictions. The other side of the coin is that of 1,800 charges in a 12-month period within the Metropolitan Police district 340 people were conditionally discharged. That perhaps means that the court found those persons before it for the first time and was loth to exact a serious penalty. I speak with experience, as a member of the bench. It also means that the court is hesitant to exact a real penalty, because it is not satisfied that it should do so. The court mistrusts the character of the charge.

Mr. Edward Gardner: Does my hon. Friend agree that, however imperfect this law—and few would defend it—the burden of proof is the same as for other offences, in the sense that the court has to be satisfied that the charge has been made out?

Mr. Wheeler: I disagree. In giving evidence to the Select Committee the Bar Council said that the table was turned in this charge. The defendant is in the position of having to prove his innocence. That is profoundly wrong, and a further reason why the charge should be repealed.
I, too, pay tribute to the police in London. They do an extraordinarily difficult job in a large community. Their record of success in recent times in detecting robberies is second to none. However, of the 567,387 indictable offences in the Metropolitan Police area this charge represents less than 2 per cent. of the charges preferred. The plain truth is that the world will not come to an end if section 4 is repealed. The constabulary will still be able to prevent crimes on the street. A number of witnesses said when giving evidence to the Select Committee that the way to prevent crimes and offences is to have uniformed police officers on


duty in the streets. That is why the Metropolitan Police force was established in 1829, some five years after the Act had been passed by the House.
There is a gain to be derived from improving police and black relationships. There is no doubt that the black community, especially in the urban areas, believes that this charge is unfairly and unjustly used. If a law is to be on the statute book and if we are to preserve the traditions of law enforcement, it must be acceptable to the broad mass of the community.
I shall not detain the House further. I merely say that the Select Committee inquired faithfully and honestly into this subject. It drew evidence from many sources, and overwhelmingly the evidence was in favour of the repeal of section 4 of the 1824 Act. That day must not be too far off.

Miss Joan Lestor: I congratulate the Select Committee on its report, I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) on being more forthcoming on this issue than many of us felt that he would be, bearing in mind what he said when in government, and I congratulate the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what he said. However, I share the concern of those who have said that delay in implementing the recommendations contained in the report gives rise to a great deal of concern.
There is a growing alienation between young people generally and the police force. That applies not only to the black community but to young people of all social classes. Anyone who looks back over the years and talks to young people now will learn that a growing alienation and hostility has developed between young people and the police. We could discuss at great length whether that is justified, and I think that we should do so. Nevertheless, alienation and hostility exist, and any law that contributes to that should be carefully examined.

Mr. Delwyn Williams: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Miss Lestor: No. The hon. Lady will not give way for the moment. I have only just started.
If such a law exists, it should be carefully examined. If it can be abolished, it should be abolished. I view with great concern the attitudes among young people and the police and what young people believe to be the attitude of the police towards them.

Mr. Williams: Does the hon. Lady realise the naivety of her argument? If she honestly believes that race relations will be improved by the abolition of the " sus " law, does she realise that the police already have many powers to harass young persons? It is something that will continue. Surely we should be considering changing those who administer the law and not changing the law itself.

Miss Lestor: I may be many things, but I am not naive. I have not yet mentioned race relations. I have merely referred to the hostility and alienation between young people and the police. If the hon. Member for Montgomery (Mr. Williams) waits, I shall discuss race relations. To satisfy him I make it clear immediately that I do not believe that the abolition of this law will of itself improve race relations.
Whatever those at the top in the police force may say about their commitment to good race relations—most of them express such a commitment—I happen to believe and, indeed, to know that that attitude does not necessarily exist as one goes down the scale in the force. A great deal more education in and understanding of race relations is needed within the police force.
I am not suggesting that the abolition of the " sus " law means that good race relations will be achieved and that the attitude of young people will change overnight. I am not naive enough to suggest that. I am sorry that I had to digress, because I did not intend to make those remarks.
There is alienation between young people and the police. The Home Secretary said that while he agrees that the law should be changed, as he feels it is wrong, if it is changed it will leave gaps, and that it is the gaps that cause him concern.
I hope that the Minister of State will explain why this law is not used in many parts of the country although the same types of offence as are alleged to require the " sus " provision are committed


People in one part of the country do not behave differently from those in another part, and I fail to understand how most communities—[Interruption.] I wish that my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) would not try to help me. I was saying that I do not understand why many parts of the country have managed perfectly well without the " sus " law and do not have a higher rate of crime than that in areas where the " sus " law is used. That is what needs explaining to those of us who do not entirely understand when the Home Secretary says that he is apprehensive about the gaps that would be left in the law.
It is true that the numbers arrested, charged and ultimately convicted are relatively small, but the fact that people are arrested, whether or not they are charged and whether or not they are convicted, adds to the belief that there is harassment by the police among people in the black community and to their conviction that the police are not on their side.
Therefore, whatever may be the numbers arrested and not ultimately charged or convicted, that does not alter the argument that the atmosphere created is not conducive to good relations between young people in general and the police and between black people in particular and the police.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Mr. Eldon Griffiths rose——

Miss Lestor: I shall be grateful if the hon. Gentleman will allow me to continue. I do not want to make a long speech, and I know that others wish to contribute to the debate. I have already given way once.
It was pointed out by the right hon. Member for Crosby (Sir G. Page) that for years before the question of race relations arose people were advocating the abolition of this law. I believe that it goes as far back as 60 years. Certainly, the National Council for Civil Liberties—[Interruption.]—about 40 years ago was arguing for abolition——

Mr. Marlow: A subversive organisation.

Miss Lestor: I ask for your protection, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I cannot understand why hon. Members on the Government Benches, most of whom so far have supported the abolition of " sus ", now seem to want to make trite remarks.

This will only lead me to stay on my feet a great deal longer, because I intend to make my speech in my own way.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): The hon. Lady has my protection, but I think that she is really able to look after herself.

Miss Lestor: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I am inclined to hope that you will let me look after myself if hon. Members carry on in that way.
More than 40 years ago, the National Council for Civil Liberties argued for the abolition of this law, mainly on the ground that it was contrary to what we would call natural justice and was the least defensible of any of the laws on our statute book. More recently, the Law Society has condemned it. So has the National Association of Probation Officers, which has condemned it as unsound in practice and, again, contrary to natural justice. In my view, it is not compatible with what we accept as the general rule of law in this country.
Our criminal law should provide that those who commit offences are punished and that those who do not commit offences go free. That is what I have always understood to be our law. Yet here is a law, the only one that I know of, under which a person of hitherto clean character can be given a sentence, without trial by jury, when he has committed no offence whatever and cannot even be said to have been attempting to commit an offence. Merely because there is subjective judgment by two policemen that he intended to commit a crime, that can be the consequence.
It is an exceedingly subjective judgment, yet that is how the " sus " law operates. Two policemen may say that a person was intending to commit a crime, in their view, because of the way in which he was behaving. A person does not have to touch a car door. He does not have to put his hand into anyone's handbag. He may loiter, may hang around in a particular manner, and two policemen may judge that he—I say " he " but it could equally be " she "—intends to commit a crime. That is how the " sus " law operates, and the person then has to prove that he did not have any intention to commit a crime. The scales are weighted against him. There is no victim in this charge. Nor does there need to be any other witness to the charge. The


only victim is the person who has been charged.
All the race relations bodies are concerned about this law because of the feeling among ethnic minorities that it is weighted against them. This has led to the alienation of young people, particularly black people. The situation causes great distress to parents. Parents of both black and white children inform me that they instruct their children not to go out of doors at night because of the " sus " laws. Whether they are right or wrong in the assumptions that prompt that decision, it shows that there is something wrong with our society and something wrong with the attitudes that are growing up.
Hon. Members who are unaware of the dangers to society when confidence in institutions that are supposed to protect the individual break down should examine the issue carefully. I do not believe that society will collapse if the " sus " law is abolished. I do not believe that gaps will be left that cannot be filled. For over 60 years, the inherent unfairness and unjust nature of this law has been well known. The issue has surfaced recently because of the lobby opposed to the law and because many people have been vocal in expressing their doubts about its application. The House should take every opportunity to abolish it.

Mr. Edward Gardner: Those hon. Members, on both sides of the House, who have been arguing that the " sus " laws, as they are called, should be repealed are pushing at an open door. Most people who have had any experience of the nature and the working of these laws will have no difficulty in appreciating the need for the repeal of section 4.
One matter that gives me cause for concern is the use of the word " immediate " in the first paragraph of the report. It recommends immediate repeal of the " sus " laws, without taking into account the need to replace the law with another law that will be more satisfactory and equally effective in dealing with the offence of street crimes that the police now have to face, especially in cities like London.
I fully understand, and am wholly in sympathy with, the argument that unevenness exists in the application of this law. I feel strongly, however—and I hope that I am right in my conviction—that the police need every opportunity that the law can provide to prevent crime from taking place.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I support my hon. and learned Friend's views. I am sure that he has not forgotten that the Criminal Law Act empowers a police constable to arrest any person whom he has reasonable cause to believe is about to commit an arrestable offence.

Mr. Gardner: That may be so, but it does not allow a person to be taken to court and charged with an offence. It is a sanction that will discourage people if they know that they may ultimately finish up in court, for example, for an attempt.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: If the gap that will exist following a total repeal of " sus " will prove to be a serious matter in areas where it is used at present, why is the gap that exists in Birmingham, West Yorkshire and the Midlands not causing difficulties for the police? It cannot be said that people do not put their hands in pockets or try car doors in those areas, yet the police manage to deal with the situation without using " sus ".

Mr. Gardner: It is idle for the House and the hon. Gentleman to pretend that there are no thieves, no petty criminals, no pickpockets or purse snatchers in our large cities. It is an arrogant assumption——

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: I do not say that.

Mr. Gardner: No, but it is an arrogant assumption to say that the police, who argue that it is essential in the public interest that they should have the first opportunity to prevent crime, should be threatened, as they believe they are, with having this law removed.
In the main, the police can be trusted. There are those who, like the members of all other professions and callings, disgrace the name of their profession or calling. However, in the main they are trustworthy, and they are the experts. It is clear that, in their expert opinion, they


need a law that will enable them to prevent crime. Their expert opinion is that if the " sus " law is removed and not replaced by a comparable and more satisfactory law their ability to deal with incipient crime will be weakened.

Mr. Mellor: Does not that beg the question that one of the reasons why " sus " is so unsatisfactory is that one has to contend, on principle, that many actions that are offences under " sus " should not be offences in the first place? It is therefore a chimera to try to say that one is looking for a new offence to replace " sus ". The object of the exercise is to say that it should not be an offence to begin with.

Mr. Gardner: We have discussed this evening the lacuna in the offences with which the police could charge someone in the absence of a " sus " law or if the offence of " attempt " were left in its present vague state of definition so that the police did not feel—and I think they would be right in this—any confidence in using it as a replacement.
I do not think that by repealing " sus " we are likely greatly to benefit race relations. The effect will be marginal, and the real argument against the " sus " law is that it is likely to lead, and in some cases undoubtedly has led, to injustice. That is a matter of importance, not just to one part of the population, but to the whole population.
That is the true argument for the repeal of the " sus " law, but I beg the House to have regard for the views of the police who have a duty to see, for example, that tourists and others can walk down streets, such as Oxford Street, without becoming prey to pickpockets and other such villains. It is wrong that the House should tonight or at any time contemplate the immediate repeal of the " sus " law without first contemplating another law to replace it.

9 pm

Mr. John Tilley: I shall be brief and try to keep to the race relations aspect of the issue. My first point is that in many senses this is a historic occasion. I believe that this is the first debate in the House purely as a result of pressure by black British organisations.
Of course, there has been great concern about this law for many years but it is only as a result of the pressure exerted by the " Scrap Sus " campaign over the last two years that the issue has reached the Floor of the House. The Black People's Organisation Campaign Against Sus, to give it its full title, was not asking for special treatment for its members. It was asking for equality before the law. It has addressed its call to Parliament and I am glad that that call has been answered in the report of the Select Committee.
It will be no surprise to the House to learn that the issue of " sus " was first brought before the House by two hon. Members who represent parts of Brixton. I was the first, when I tabled an early-day motion in November 1978 calling for the repeal of " sus ". If I remember correctly the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Irving) was the only Conservative Member who supported me. The second, and more important hon. Member was my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) who introduced a Private Member's Bill to repeal the law. The Opposition would have been glad if the Government had simply announced that they would give time for that Bill to become law in this Session.
I agree that, if " sus " is scrapped, it will be of great symbolic importance but repeal in itself will not solve the continuing problem of the bad relationship in many of our cities between black people and the police. I quote some statistical evidence of how wide the gulf is in my own constituency. I refer to the poll published in The Times on 10 April.
The article said that 70 per cent. of those interviewed in Brixton said that people in the area had little or no confidence in the police. More than half of the interviewees said that immigrants were discriminated against and that young people were treated less favourably than other groups. Two-thirds of those interviewed thought that it was likely that the violence in Bristol would be repeated. The sense of grievance that many black people feel about " sus " showed in the poll. Thirty eight per cent. of those questioned in Brixton felt that the police were too harsh on suspicious behaviour.
That shows the width of the gulf that exists. I believe that this House should be concerned about that and that the Government should take positive measures to narrow the gap. " Sus " is merely the focal point for the anger and frustration felt by many black groups and individuals. That was made clear at the first meeting of the campaign in February 1978 when Paul Boateng, a solicitor from the Paddington law centre, said:
 It is right that this campaign should be concerned about repealing the Vagrancy Act, but we must not forget that even if the Act is gone, the problem of the police is still there.
So the repeal of this Act would be a negative action and in many ways it would only reflect a change in the policing practice that is already beginning to emerge.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Mr. Eldon Griffiths rose——

Mr. Tilley: I am not going to allow an intervention. The hon. Member, among others, wishes to speak in the debate. The figures from Lambeth in 1978–79 quoted in the report show a 34 per cent. drop in the use of " sus " by the police in that district. I believe that the police in Lambeth—and this may be reassuring to the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths)—and elsewhere should be given every support in their use of effective measures against street crime.
However, I believe that the police are becoming aware that " sus " is not an effective measure because many youngsters honestly believe that they will be picked up if they do not intend to commit crime and for that reason they tend to believe that they have nothing to lose by turning to crime. Black parents who have complained to me about " sus " do not condone or encourage street crime. Many of them have been the victims of such crime. They are concerned that their children will be pulled into crime because of their resentment against a "sus" conviction that ensures that they will never get a decent job.
This report—and the Government action that I should like to see—should be just the beginning of a programme of positive improvement in relations between black people and the police. Action on the report could be an important symbol

of the Government's will. With many other hon. Members I stress that much more positive features would be needed in such a programme. There should be an extention of experiments in community policing and an extension in the length and diversity of police recruit training so that they understand more about the communities in the inner cities where they have to work. There should be more policemen in uniform on the beat and more should live in the areas in which they work. That is desperately needed in inner London.
The complaints procedure should be made quicker and more flexible. There must be greater liaison between community leaders, elected representatives and the police. However, that liaison must not be a one-way street. The police must be more open. They must be more willing to discuss their operational methods and to accept criticism. That is crucial to the success of the proposals in the report.
If the police decide that the report and debate indicate that they have lost the confidence of Parliament, both the report and the debate will be counter-productive. I am sorry that the Government have not given the lead for which I hoped. If the Government tabled the amendment as a means of replacing " sus " with something else—or of replacing the blunderbuss of "sus" with an Armalite rifle the nature of which we cannot see—it is a wrecking amendment.
Some Conservative Members committed themselves in their election manifestos to voting for the repeal of " sus ". I do not see how they can vote for the Government amendment. The Government have missed a chance to indicate to the black and white communities that, when tackling law and order in the inner cities they are prepared to be more open-minded and even-handed. They should make clear that the duty of a law-abiding community is to assist the police, but that there is a need to recognise that the police are part of the community and that they owe their first duty to all the members of that community—young and old, black and white.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I shall first respond to the sincere speech by the hon. Member for Lambeth, Central (Mr. Tilley). I am sure that the


Committee did not make its recommendations in response to the first historic pressure by the new generation of black British. It would be wrong if the House at any time responded to one section of our society, whatever its colour or background. The law is general. With respect to the hon. Member for Lambeth, Central, he did no credit to the Committee when he suggested that that was its motive.
The House knows of my affiliation with the Police Federation. If there is any group whose views should be heard on this subject it is the police. They are virtually unanimous. The Police Federation has made its opinions clear in a memorandum sent to all hon. Members. I hope that they have studied it. I shall not weary the House by reading it, but I hope that hon. Members will be in no doubt that the opinions of the police should weigh heavily with the House before it reaches a conclusion.
We are in the presence of a rapidly rising tide of crime. Yet we are about to take away one of the powers of the police to prevent crime. In Scotland we are adding to the police armoury new powers to stop, search and detain. At the same time, in London in particular, we are taking away some of the powers.
The police are not clinging to " sus " because they like it. They are not hanging on to it to make their job easier. It does not. The federation is saying to the House that we
 should think long and hard before making a decision which could impair police efficiency and expose vulnerable people living in inner city areas to the risk of more crime, whilst failing to achieve the objective of better relations.
Those are considered words. I hope that the House will weigh them.
I wish to make three specific points. As it happens, I agree with the Committee that "sus" is objectionable in principle. I have also been long enough in the House to know that we are today seeing the beginning of the end of " sus". I welcome what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said on the matter and the way in which he presented his remarks.
I disagree with the Committee when it suggests that there need not be any legislative alternative. In paragraph 35 of the report the Committee talks of a " word of warning " that could be given by the

police to those who may be about to commit a crime. The police are doing that all the time, but it does not always work. In paragraph 45 the Committee speaks of that new remedy for everything—more police on the beat. We are getting more police on the beat. I welcome that. But however many police there are on the beat, they will not stop some street crime from taking place.
The Committee should have paid a great deal more attention to the reform of attempted theft. I was pleased and relieved that my right hon. Friend took the initiative in indicating to the House something of the Law Commission's thinking on this matter. I have taken the trouble to interrogate a number of constables and sergeants about attempted theft, and the practical point that they make is that it will not achieve what we require.
Let us consider two specific examples. First, there is the young man who is a " dip ". He is seen putting his hand into someone's pocket in an underground train or on a bus. The Metropolitan Police have a directive——

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Mr. Alexander W. Lyon rose——

Mr. Griffiths: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would be good enough to listen to my point. A directive has been issued by the Metropolitan Police which makes it plain that a case must not be brought, and a charge must not be laid, where a crime is impossible. That is a matter of record. The police are under the difficulty that their own directive states that where the crime is impossible because there is no money in the pocket, no goods to be stolen from the car, or no valuables in the handbag, they must not bring the charge of attempted theft—and they do not. That is the practical point.

Mr. Anderson: Mr. Anderson rose——

Mr. Griffiths: I have said that I shall not give way. I shall make my speech and sit down as rapidly as I can. It is because the Metropolitan Police, rightly or wrongly, operate under the directive arising from impossible crime that they frequently rely on " sus " instead of attempted theft. I had hoped that the Committee would pay more attention to that problem. If it had taken more evidence from practical working police officers, it would have recognised the


real difficulties to which my right hon. Friend referred.
" Sus " will have to go. It is plainly the will both of the House and of the Government that it should go. But it is vital that the recommendations of the Law Commission on reform of attempted theft should also be considered carefully, so that we do the two together.
In the debate this afternoon we have rightly been concerned about race relations. It is worth putting on record that the Committee did not find that the police were guilty, in any respect, of racial discrimination. I regret that the Committee, in some paragraphs of its report, spoke about " black and white arrests ". There are no black or white arrests; there are only arrests of citizens. I hope that the House will maintain a colour-blind attitude to the commission of crime, as the police do. This is not a racial matter; it is an objective matter concerned with the commission of crime. I conclude with words used by the Police Federation and urge them particularly on my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. The Police Federation states:
 An example of how ' sus ' becomes confused with the normal process of stopping and questioning occurred in the aftermath of the Bristol riot, where it was alleged that ' sus ' was frequently used against the young black community. In fact, this offence is very rarely charged in the Avon and Somerset Constabulary and clearly ' sus ' was being used in this case as a blanket term for criticising police actions.
That frequently happens. " Sus " is the catch-all phrase.
 Abolition of the ' sus ' law will not affect the right and duty of the police to stop and caution people in the street when they have reasonable grounds for doing so, and the Police Federation has asked the Royal Commission to propose clarification of this power for all police officers as there is considerable confusion about it up and down the country.
If ' sus ' is to be abolished, the immediate reaction of many people when stopped by the police will be to suspect that they are making use of a power which no longer exists.
—that is the rub. If " sus " is removed, it will be assumed at once that the police cannot stop and cannot act on suspicion. I am afraid that there will be this danger unless quickly—in my view, simultaneously—we replace " sus " with a reform of attempted theft to deal with the problem of street crime.

Mr. Donald Anderson: If " sus " were to be replaced with another charge, the danger is that that charge would be subject to the same objections of principle as those to which " sus " is now subject.
I agree with the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) that the days of " sus " are numbered. I also agree that the fact that it harms race relations is not a sufficient reason for changing the law. But the hon. Gentleman's advice relating to this police directive is out of date. The law on conditional appropriation, which was unclear following the cases of Easom and Husseyn, has been clarified in recent case law—the case of Walkington and the Attorney-General's References (Nos. 1 and 2 of 1979)—and has been applied specifically on conditional appropriation in respect of " sus " in the case of Miles v. Clovis. Therefore, the directive, which relates to the Metropolitan Police force, is out of date and should be amended in the light of current case law on conditional appropriation.
I make only three points, in view of the time. First, we must recognise that one of the great attractions of " sus " to prosecuting authorities is that it is a summary offence. They know that if such cases were to go before juries, many prosecutions would not succeed. Therefore, it is perhaps too convenient for prosecuting authorities to rely on " sus ". Indeed, it undermines the rule of law in that respect.
The fundamental objection has already been put forward by other hon. Members—namely, that people are convicted on evidence of intention, not of an unlawful act. That objection in principle is coupled with the fact that there is considerable opportunity for abuse.
There is evidence that the use of this law varies from police division to police division. It suggests that there is too large a discretion available to a prosecuting authority whether to bring a charge of " sus ". Therefore, there is a danger of the charge being used oppressively. That in itself must reduce respect for the law.
There is a real danger that a police officer on the beat will reach the conclusion, rightly or wrongly, that a young man is up to no good—or that young men are up to no good—and make a " sus "


charge. I have a personal friend who is a retired police officer. In his early days he was in plain clothes and was picked up by two young police officers when he was hanging about. He did not let on, and he was taken back to the police station. The two young police officers were rather embarrassed when they found out who they had picked up on what they thought was a " sus " offence.
Because of this selective enforcement and because of the dangers of oppressive use of the powers, in addition to the objections of principle that have been raised by other hon. Members, I believe that " sus " must go. We can have our differences about the word " immediate ", but I have lingering doubts about the question whether " sus " should be replaced in areas where many people think that there may be a lacuna in the law—the proximate test in attempted thefts which does not now go far enough, the " dipping " in Underground stations, the trying of car doors, and so on. My conclusion is that whatever attempt is made to replace " sus " will give rise to the same objections of principle that now damn it.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I have an advantage, in that I have both prosecuted and represented defendants charged under this Act. Further, I have served as a special constable in a force where this Act is used. These experiences have fortified me in my conclusion that section 4 of the Vagrancy Act should be repealed—for one overwhelming reason. It is certain that this offence gives rise to more unsatisfactory convictions than any other that I have encountered.
There are two reasons for that. The first is the nature of the evidence required. It is not necessary to prove a substantive criminal offence, it is simply necessary to prove a suspicious act, which gives rise to the conclusion that a person is acting suspiciously, and that he harbours a criminal intent. Thus, acts that are capable of at least two interpretations are frequently relied upon as constituting an essential element in criminal offence, for example, loitering in a doorway, following a girl with an open handbag or fingering car doors. They are all acts that are capable of an innocent explanation or a guilty explanation.
One of the real problems is that in the first instance the discretion and the interpretation is given to two police officers or one police officer on the beat. I am prepared to accept that in the majority of cases that discretion is exercised with considerable justice and good sense, but in a small number of cases we have to face the fact that the police are motivated by a degree of prejudice and hostility towards the person concerned. I say that with all the experience of 12 years at the common law Bar behind me, and I am certain that that is true.
This is the sort of offence where an admission is of particular importance. If one finds a burglar sitting in front of a safe with a blow-torch it does not really matter what he says, because he has no excuse, but if a man has committed a number of actions that are not unequivocal, and one is trying to establish a guilty intent, what he says is of particular importance. This Act exposes the police to temptation. I am certain that in a small number of cases they " verbal " the defendant in order to secure a conviction. By that I mean to say that they misrepresent what he says or misinterpret what he says, and sometimes attribute to him things that he has not said at all. These things do not happen very often, but they happen. They happen sufficiently often to cause great concern to the House.
I am not in favour of immediate repeal, for the simple reason that I take the Home Secretary's point that this matter must be considered in the context of the Law Commission's Report on Attempt.

Mr. Barry Porter: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Hogg: No, I will not.
However, this is a matter of which the House must be aware. We need reform, and we need repeal.

Mr. George Cunningham: Although this has been a short debate, there have been a large number of contributions. It is of very great significance that in all those contributions from the Government


Benches, there have been only two speakers, apart from the Secretary of State, who have supported the Government's position. One of those spoke in his capacity as a representative of the Police Federation. We all knew, before the debate started, what the position of the Police Federation was.
When the House created the new system of Select Committees last year, the view was expressed on all sides that it would be a waste of time unless the Committee reports were brought to the House fairly speedily after production for the House to express a view upon them. The Opposition have been content, therefore, to use some time today to give the House an opportunity of expressing a view on this very important report from the Home Affairs Committee on the offence of loitering with intent. I congratulate the Committee, and especially the chairman of the Committee and the chairman of the Sub-Committee which actually conducted the investigation, on the calm detachment and bi-partisan approach which they adopted in their investigation, an approach which has been reflected for the most part in our debate today.
The report was almost unanimous. There was only one member of the Committee who dissented from any part of the report. That means that the House must give great weight to the opinion that has been expressed in it. If we do not do so, these Committees might as well not exist and we might as well return to the old system.
The House must decide tonight what view it wants to express. We have had all the reports that we need. We have not just had the Select Committee report; we have had the Home Office working party report. We have had other investigations over the years. There comes a time when a decision is needed. But we are not tonight engaged in actually changing the law. That will come later. We perfectly understand that if the decision is taken in favour of the motion which we have tabled tonight, there still rests with the Government the matter of timing. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) made clear at the beginning of the debate, and I make clear now, that we read the motion as indicating that there should be repeal of the provision in the course of the

coming Session, that is, the Session after this one. That is what me mean by our motion.
It would be impossible—I see the Home Secretary assenting—for us to pick and choose between hundreds of sentences in a report with regard to timing. What we have to do is to give the House an opportunity of saying " We agree with the recommendation. Now let the Government fit this into their parliamentary programme in the near future."
The offence of loitering with intent has been controversial from its inception and long before it took on any aspect of racial discrimination. It has been called the most unconstitutional Act in the book. The Lord Chief Justice of England in 1924 attacked the very idea of using this offence in substitution for attempted theft because the evidence was not sufficient to justify such a charge. Lord Justice Scott, in the Ledworth and Roberts case in 1937, said that the whole series of Vagrancy Acts had been born out of circumstances which no longer existed, and he concluded:
 To retain such laws seems to me inconsistent with our national sense of personal liberty or our respect for the rule of law.
The Select Committee was right to address itself to the fundamental faults of the Vagrancy Act offence and not only to its effect on race relations. The existence of " sus " does adversely affect police relations with ethnic minorities, but that problem goes much wider than " sus " and will still be with us when " sus " is repealed. That is the case against those who, like the Police Federation, say that we are having this debate only because the case has been mounted by those who are primarily or exclusively interested in race relations. Our statute book is cluttered with archaic provisions. If we do not use our common sense and individual judgment and if we do not do some weeding out when a case is so overwhelming, every bad idea that is conceived will stay on the statute book for ever.
What is so offensive about the Vagrancy Act offence? The best way to answer that question is to imagine that that law did not exist and that an hon. Member had proposed for the first time that it should be put on the statute book. Imagine the case that an hon. Member would have to make. He would have to say that he wanted to make it an offence


to intend to commit a serious offence and that certain practical things would indicate that a person had had that intent. If an hon. Member put his case in such a way, he would be laughed out of court
The hon. Member might suggest that the law would apply if a person was loitering. However, by loitering I do not mean that the person would have to be walking slowly. He could be running, walking fast or standing still. He could be doing any physical act, because that is what is meant by loitering. The hon. Member might say that the provisions would apply only in the case of a suspected person. He might say that he would allow a man's previous convictions to be invoked—contrary to the general principle—in order to prove that he was a suspected person. The hon. Member might say that that should be allowed even if the policeman who had made the arrest had not known that the man had previous convictions. In addition, it might be suggested that anyone—not only a policeman—could make the arrest.
All hon. Members know that if the offence had not existed and if an hon. Member had made that case, he would have been regarded as something of a loony. The provision would not have got on to the statute book. However, those are the characteristics of the Vagrancy Act offence. I submit that it is a good principle that if no one would have been prepared to advance such a proposition if we had not had it, the fact that it was put on the statute book 160 years ago cannot mean that it is a good thing to leave it there.
In practice, the faults of " sus " go wider. Technically, as the hon. and learned Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner) said, the onus of proof in a case of " sus " rests with the prosecution, as it does for other offences. It is the responsibility of the prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. However, the definition of " sus " is such that the onus is shifted to some extent on to the defendant. Courts decide " sus " cases on the balance of probability, not on the criterion of beyond reasonable doubt. Although some of the magistrates who spoke to the Select Committee agreed with the proposition, most would strenuously deny it. However, I believe that in practice that is what happens.
I cannot forget the case of one of my constituents. He appeared before a stipendiary magistrate and was convicted on a " sus " charge. The magistrate told him after he had been convicted that he could not believe my constituent's explanation of his actions on that day. The appeal was later allowed by the Crown court, when the man came before a proper judge. The case was then properly examined. However, it is clear from the remarks of the stipendiary that the case had been decided on the balance of probability and that the onus was on the defendant, contrary to the principles of English law.
The definition is such that there is too great a chance that innocent people may be convicted. Nothing can harm the relations of the police with all sections of the community—both black and white—more than the conviction of innocent people. The magistrates who appeared before the Select Committee confirmed that they believed that the balance of proof in a case of " sus " shifted on to the defendant.
The question arises whether the police need this or any equivalent power. It is argued that they do. Certainly the police need every power that we can properly give them to pursue and to catch criminals. But we must not offend the proper principles of the law in doing so. There has been no satisfactory answer to the question " If this offence is so important, how comes it that it is used hardly at all in some parts of the country, including some of the big cities outside London which have conditions similar to those in inner London?"
Does anyone argue that pickpocketing or interfering with cars is less common in Glasgow than in London? " Sus " exists in Scotland. We wished it upon them in 1870—they were free of it in 1824—but it is not used.
It was interesting to see the reasons given by Home Office officials why " sus " was used in Cardiff. The explanation was that London policemen used to be lent to Cardiff to help deal with the pickpockets who went from London to Cardiff for the races and the London policemen took with them the habit of using " sus ". The only explanation why " sus " is used in some parts of the country and not in others is that it is a matter of


habit. The police in some parts of the country manage to do without the power.
The police have other powers. In London they have the stop-and-search powers of the Metropolitan Police Act 1839, and there are similar provisions in other parts of the country. There is also the provision under the Criminal Law Act 1967 by which a policeman may arrest on suspicion and without a warrant a person whom he reasonably suspects is about to commit an arrestable offence. Those provisions differ from " sus " in that the arrested person does not afterwards face criminal prosecution for an offence. He is arrested and interfered with in what he may have been attempting to do, but he does not face conviction.
Let me illustrate to the House the dangers of the " sus " arrangement, compared with the others. I had a constituent who was picked up on suspicion that he had been attempting to steal from handbags. He was holding a grip. It was searched, but nothing incriminating was found. In Birmingham, the police would have used their stop-and-search powers and, when they did not find anything incriminating, that would have been the end of the matter. In this case, the man was charged with " sus " and convicted, though his appeal was allowed in the Crown court. We give the police a temptation when we allow them to proceed to a prosecution and not only to stop and search for incriminating evidence.
The chairman of the Criminal Bar Association told the Select Committee that it was his view and, he believed, the view of his colleagues that the offence was unsatisfactory and archaic and that no loss would be sustained by its abolition. The Society of Labour Lawyers called for repeal, the Society of Conservative Lawyers said that it was open to abuse in its present form and the magistrates called for repeal.
The Home Office working party of 1976 called for a rewording of the offence, but that working party consisted entirely of Whitehall officials and serving police officers. They admitted to the Select Committee that their remit in studying the matter at that stage had been much narrower than the remit adopted by the Select Committee. In any case, the working party said clearly in its report that it

was a matter ultimately for the judgment of Parliament.
Whenever a reform in our law is proposed, the defence goes up " Let's wait for such and such a committee to report ". Those of us who were trying about three years ago to create the right for an arrested person to tell someone that he had been arrested were greeted with predictions of doom about what would happen if such a proposal were passed and we were advised to wait for the Royal Commission on criminal procedure to report.
The House exercised its judgment that night and the provision was passed on to the statute book. Since then, no more has been heard from the police or anyone else about those predictions of doom. The Police Federation says that we should wait for the Royal Commission on criminal procedure, but the federation is mistaken in believing that the content of the criminal law, as against pre-prosecution procedure, is properly a matter for the Royal Commission.
The Commission has had evidence put to it on the subject, but it is not a matter on which it can properly report. The Government more relevantly suggest that we await the publication of the Law Commission's report on " attempt ".
I took the precaution a month or so ago of asking the secretary of the Law Commission whether its review of " attempt" was touching on the matter of " sus ". The reply that I received stated:
 The Law Commission is not dealing with the question of the need for or the reform of the suspected person offence … In our forthcoming report on attempts … we shall make it clear that our conclusions in regard to the law of attempt have been reached independently of considerations affecting the section 4 offence and do not of course preclude further examination of that offence.
There needs to be change in the law on " attempt ", but that does not bear upon the need for us to express a general opinion today on the need to repeal the " sus " provision.
We are asking the House to say tonight that it agrees with the recommendation of a Committee of Conservative and Labour Members who have conducted the most thorough examination of this question that it has been given. The Committee says that repeal should take place now, but we all know that in parliamentary reality that cannot be next week or even this Session. There is no


one who would not settle for next Session. That is what we intend by our motion, and that is the significance that we shall attach to it if it is passed.
The Government, by contrast, are asking the House to say to the Committee " Thank you for your useful document. We shall do something about it at some time. We shall not say what we shall do and we shall not exactly say when we shall do it, but we shall do something some time." That is not a proper response to the situation and to the report before us. I beg Conservative Members to do what is necessary to make the House of Commons work—exercise their judgment in the light of the overwhelming view expressed in the debate and the reports and support our motion.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Leon Brittan): There has been a wide measure of agreement on both sides of the House about the criticisms that can properly be levelled against the " sus " law. I therefore regret that the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) has been less than fair to the Government in his assessment of the implications and reasons for our amendment. The hon. Gentleman is experienced enough in the ways of this House to know that a Government who were seeking delay and an excuse for inaction would not include in their amendment reference to an early decision or refer to a report of the Law Commission that is already in the hands of the Lord Chancellor and has been seen by my right hon. Friend and myself. Precisely because there is—and it was apparent that there would be—a wide degree of consensus about the faults of the " sus " law, it was considered right by my right hon. Friends to table an amendment that stated the Government's position with greater precision than would have been possible by not tabling an amendment in that form.
It is all very well for the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) and the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury to say that their motion asks for action next Session and not immediately, but that is not what it says, or what the Select Committee report said.
On a more substantial point, we suggest that matters other than those dealt with

by the Select Committee should be looked at, not because we wish to be carping in our reference to what the Select Committee said but because we believe that those other matters, and in particular what the Law Commission had to say on the law of " attempt ", are relevant to the consideration of the way in which we should deal with the " sus " law.
The criticisms that have been made of the " sus " law from both sides of the House have been legion. In that sense I adopt the words of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner), who said that those who are criticising the law are pushing at an open door. It is significant, therefore, rather than to rehearse the criticisms that have been made in any detail to consider the nature of the criticisms and the gravamen of the general objections to the offence in its present form.
The criticisms start with the objection that in this offence far more than in most, but not exclusively, heavy reliance is placed on proving criminal intention rather than specific acts. There is criticism that in this instance it is possible to rely on previous convictions in making good the offence. The criticisms draw attention to the antiquity and the antique language of the Act. It is said that in this offence, which involves an accusation substantially of dishonesty, the accused person does not have the right to trial by jury.
In the rehearsal of those criticisms, two matters become apparent. First, it is apparent that they are substantial and real criticisms. That is why my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said that the Government consider that the present law is not a proper vehicle for the administration of justice in today's circumstances. Secondly, it is important to observe that, vital as these various matters are, and important and crucial as they are when considering whether the offence provides the defendant with adequate rights when he is charged, they are all objections of an essentially procedural nature. They are objections directed to the way in which the offence is brought, the way in which the prosecution is brought, and what has to be proved.
I now come to an issue on which there may be a difference between those of my right lion, and hon. Friends who support the amendment and Labour Members who


do not. I contend that the criticisms fall short in advancing with any degree of conviction the argument that the acts in respect of which the offence is brought are acts which, if properly proved with the full protection of the law, should not be criminal. We are not able to say that all that we have to do is to repeal the law without covering any of the ground that at present is covered by it. That is because we believe that there is a serious case for taking the view that a gap would emerge in the ambit of the criminal law that would allow persons to engage with impunity in acts that should properly be within its ambit.
Two specific situations have been mentioned, and both relate to actions of dishonesty. There is the handbag or the pocket in which there proves to be nothing. In that case the act would not be capable of prosecution as a criminal attempt, because it would be an attempt to commit an impossible act. In spite of what the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) said about recent decisions of the Court of Appeal, the fact remains that the leading case on impossibility is that of Haughton v. Smith, which still establishes that a person cannot be convicted of an attempt if what he is attempting to do is impossible.
As my right hon. Friend said in deploying the Government's case at the outset, the Law Commision makes recommendations on that specific practical point. In the face of that situation and the problem seen in its proper light, it cannot be right to pray in aid the report of the Law Commission—which has already been printed, if not finally published—and say that there is prevarication, since any responsible Government, faced with a gap in the law of the kind that I have explained, are entitled to say to their supporters and to the House that it would be only rational to await publication of the report and consider whether it was necessary to make a change in the law of " attempt " to deal with the matter.
The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury said that in his communications with the Law Commission he was told that the consideration of the law of " attempt " was independent of the consideration of the law of " sus ". Of course, that is right. But, from the point of view of this House, representing as it

does, or ought to do. the interests of the community as a whole, it is entirely reasonable for us, in looking at the gap that would open in the law if " sus " were repealed without any kind of replacement, to ask whether there is something in the law of " attempt " which, if changed in the way that the Law Commission is recommending, could enable a real mischief to be dealt with by the criminal law without the unfairnesses, antiquity and procedural objections of the present law. That is what we are saying.

Mr. George Cunningham: Mr. George Cunningham rose——

Mr. Brittan: I shall not give way, because time is short.
I do not pretend that it is only the question of an attempt to commit the impossible that would be in the gap if the law of " sus " were repealed without any kind of replacement. There is also, for example, the question of dishonest tampering with car door handles. In that situation, even if the Law Commission's report were implemented, it would not lead to criminal prosecutions being possible in the absence of the " sus " law, because, as the hon. Member for Swansea, East made clear in an intervention, the act of handling a door handle does not clearly show an intention to commit theft. It is equally compatible or consistent with an intention to take and drive away.

Mr. Cunningham: Mr. Cunningham rose——

Mr. Brittan: May I finish the point? I did not interrupt the hon. Gentleman, and I am sure that he wishes me to have the same chance to put my case as he rightly grabbed with both hands to put his own.
In that latter circumstance, if one thought that an act of that kind was something that one ought not simply to allow to take place without any intervention of the criminal law, some other type of legislative intervention would be necessary to cover it.
All of that does not mean—I am anxious to stress this beyond any doubt whatever—that in suggesting that it may be necessary to make changes in the law one is wishing simply to rewrite " sus " in modern form or dress it up in a different way. That is not what I am arguing for in any way. I accept that much of the ground that " sus " covers can be left


uncovered, but I urge the House also to acknowledge that there is some ground which " sus " covers which ought to be covered by the criminal law in a form which is more modern and does not have the objectionable features that the present " sus " law has.

Mr. Cunningham: How does the Minister get round Birmingham?

Mr. Brittan: The Birmingham point, if I may so call it—perhaps I may say this for the assistance of those hon. Members who have not had the opportunity to hear the whole debate—is the suggestion that there can be no gap in the law which needs filling when one takes into account the variations in the use of the " suspected person " offence in different parts of the country. Those who made that point failed to point out that the figures provided by the Home Office to the Select Committee showed that all forces in the country made at least some use of the power in the years 1976 to 1978. The fact that there are variations in the extent of the use of the power is a very different matter. It cannot be said that there are parts of the country in which the " sus " offence has not been used at all.
An important point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) illustrates the thinking of the Select Committee. The Committee, to do it credit, as all would wish, did not pretend, and did not state, that there would be no gaps in the law if the " sus " offence were abolished. It suggested that there were alternatives that could be used and that alternative provisions of the law were available and appropriate to cover some of the area at present used by " sus ".
One of the suggestions in that line of argument is that some of the local Acts should be used. Section 66 of the Metropolitan Police Act 1839 was prayed in aid. But that is not really appropriate. It applies only where a person is reasonably suspected of having or conveying, in any manner, anything stolen or unlawfully obtained. That does not apply.

The more important example raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham was the provision of section 2(5) of the Criminal Law Act, which says
 A constable may arrest without warrant any person who is, or whom he, with reasonable cause, suspects to be, about to commit an arrestable offence.

The Select Committee, in its report, envisaged that some of the ground at present covered by " sus " would be covered in that way. I concede absolutely that in the vast majority of cases at present covered by " sus " it would be possible to use that provision. I maintain, however, that it would be worse to use that provision than to retain " sus ". I shall explain why. A power that allows a constable to arrest somebody and not to charge him increases the chances of harassment far more than an offence where the person who is arrested is at least brought before a court.

Many hon. Members have criticised the fact that two policemen can say what they like about an accused person, but it is for the court to decide whether it chooses to believe what those policemen say or accepts the inferences from the conduct that those policemen describe. If one says that instead of people being arrested and brought before a court they should simply be arrested as a means of dealing with the immediate problem and then released, one is surely giving an open invitation to precisely the kind of harassment that a rational reform of the law would seek to avoid.

Even when the view taken of this antique offence is uniquely and universally hostile, one has still to accept the fact that some alternative, over some of the ground, is necessary. It is because the Opposition motion does not give sufficient, or any, credence to that undoubted fact emerging from a fair analysis of the position as a whole that I commend to the House the amendment that stands in the name of my right hon. Friend.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 228, Noes 283.

Division No. 341]
AYES
[10 pm


Abse, Leo
Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood


Adams, Allen
Ashton, Joe
Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)


Allaun Frank
Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)
Bidwell, Sydney


Alton, David
Bagler, Gordon A. T.
Booth, Rt Hon Albert


Anderson, Donald
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Boothroyd, Miss Betty


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur (M'brough)


Armstrong, Rt. Hon Ernest
Beith, A. J.
Bradley, Tom




Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Palmer, Arthur


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Haynes, Frank
Park, George


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh, Leith)
Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)
Parker, John


Buchan, Norman
Holland, Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhall)
Parry, Robert


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Home Robertson, John
Penhaligon, David


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)
Homewood, William
Prescott, John


Campbell, Ian
Hooley, Frank
Price, Christopher (Lewisham West)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Horam, John
Race, Reg


Canavan, Dennis
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds South)


Cant, R. B.
Huckfield, Les
Richardson, Jo


Carmichael, Neil
Hudson Davies, Gwilym Ednyfed
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Robertson, George


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Robinson, Geoffery (Coventry NW)


Conlan, Bernard
Janner, Hon Greville
Rodgers, Rt Hon William


Cook, Robin F.
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Rooker, J. W.


Cowans, Harry
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)


Craigen, J. M. (Glasgow, Maryhill)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Crowther, J. S.
Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rhondda)
Rowlands, Ted


Cryer, Bob
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Ryman, John


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Sandelson, Neville


Cunningham, George (Islington S)
Kerr, Russell
Sever, John


Cunningham, Dr John (Whitehaven)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Sheerman, Barry


Dalyell, Tarn
Kinnock, Neil
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert (A'ton-u-L)


Davidson, Arthur
Lamborn, Harry
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br'hllls)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Lamond, James
Shore, Rt Hon Peter (Step and Pop)


Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)
Leadbitter, Ted
Short, Mrs Renée


Deakins Eric
Leighton, Ronald
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)
Silverman, Julius


Dempsey, James
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Skinner, Dennis


Dewar, Donald
Litherland, Robert
Smith, Rt Hon J. (North Lanarkshire)


Dixon, Donald
Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Snape, Peter


Dobson, Frank
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Soley, Clive


Dormand, Jack
Lyons, Edward (Bradford West)
Spearing, Nigel


Douglas, Dick
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Spriggs, Leslie


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
McCartney, Hugh
Stallard, A. W.


Dubs, Alfred
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Stoddart, David


Dunnett, Jack
McElhone, Frank
Strang, Gavin


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Straw, Jack


Eadie, Alex
McKelvey, William
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Eastham, Ken
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire)
Maclennan, Robert
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


English, Michael
McNally, Thomas
Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)


Ennals, Rt Hon David
McNamara, Kevin
Tilley, John


Evans, loan (Aberdare)
McWilliam, John
Tinn, James


Evans, John (Newton)
Magee, Bryan
Torney, Tom


Ewing, Harry
Marshall, David (Gl'sgow, Shettles'n)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Faulds, Andrew
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Field, Frank
Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Fitch, Alan
Maxton, John
Walker, Rt Hon Harold (Doncaster)


Flannery, Martin
Maynard, Miss Joan
Watkins, David


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Meacher, Michael
Weetch, Ken


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Welsh, Michael


Ford, Ben
Mikardo, Ian
Wheeler, John


Forrester, John
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
White, Frank R. (Bury & Radcliffe)


Foster, Derek
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Mitchell. R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
Whitehead, Phillip


Freud, Clement
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Whitlock, William


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


George, Bruce
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Newens, Stanley
Winnick, David


Gourlay, Harry
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Woodall, Alec


Graham, Ted
Ogden, Eric
Woolmer, Kenneth


Grant, George (Morpeth)
O'Halloran, Michael
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Grant, John (Islington C)
O'Neill, Martin



Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Mr. Donald Coleman and


Harrison, Rt Hon Waller
Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham
Mr. George Morton.


Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith






NOES


Adley, Robert
Bell, Sir Ronald
Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)


Aitken, Jonathan
Bendall, Vivian
Bowden, Andrew


Alexander, Richard
Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)
Boyson, Dr Rhodes


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Braine, Sir Bernard


Ancram, Michael
Best, Keith
Bright, Graham


Arnold, Tom
Bevan, David Gilroy
Brinton, Tim


Aspinwall, Jack
Biffen, Rt Hon John
Brittan, Leon


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Biggs-Davison, John
Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher


Atkins, Robert (Preston North)
Blackburn, John
Brooke, Hon Peter


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Blaker, Peter
Brotherton, Michael


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'thorpe)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Boscawen, Hon Robert
Browne, John (Winchester)







Bruce-Gardyne, John
Hicks, Robert
Pink, R. Bonner


Bryan, Sir Paul
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Pollock, Alexander


Buchanan-Smith, Hon Alick
Hill, James
Porter, George


Buck, Antony
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)


Budgen, Nick
Holland, Philip (Carlton)
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Bulmer, Esmond
Hooson, Tom
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Burden, F. A.
Hordern, Peter
Prior, Rt Hon James


Butcher, John
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Proctor, K. Harvey


Butler, Hon Adam
Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildford)
Raison, Timothy


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Rathbone, Tim


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Hurd, Hon Douglas
Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Benton, Tim


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Rhodes James, Robert


Channon, Paul
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Chapman, Sydney
Knox, David
Rifkind, Malcolm


Churchill, W. S.
Lament, Norman
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Clark, Sir William (Croydon South)
Lang, Ian
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Cockeram, Eric
Latham, Michael
Rost, Peter


Colvin, Michae
Lawrence, Ivan
Royle, Sir Anthony


Cope, John
Lawson, Nigel
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Cormack, Patrick
Lee, John
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman


Corrie, John
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Scott, Nicholas


Costain, A. P.
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Cranborne, Viscount
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Crouch, David
Lloyd, Ian (Havant & Waterloo)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Silvester, Fred


Dickens, Geoffrey
Loveridge, John
Sims, Roger


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Luce, Richard
Skeet, T. H. H.


Dover, Denshore
Lyell, Nicholas
Speed, Keith


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Macfarlane, Nell
Speller, Tony


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
MacGregor, John
Spence, John


Durant, Tony
MacKay, John (Argyll)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)


Dykes, Hugh
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Sproat, lain


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)
Stanbrook, lvor


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)
NcNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Stanley, John


Eggar, Timothy
McQuarrie, Albert
Steen, Anthony


Elliott, Sir William
Madel, David
Stevens, Martin


Eyre, Reginald
Major, John
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Marland, Paul
Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)


Fairgrleve, Russell
Marlow, Tony
Stokes, John


Faith, Mrs Sheila
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Farr, John
Marten, Neil (Banbury)
Tapsell, Peter


Fell, Anthony
Mates, Michael
Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Mather, Carol
Taylor, Teddy (Southend East)


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Maude, Rt Hon Angus
Temple-Morris, Peter


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Mawby, Ray
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)


Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Thompson, Donald


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Thorne, Neil (llford South)


Forman, Nigel
Mayhew, Patrick
Thornton, Malcolm


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Fox, Marcus
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove & Redditch)
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)


Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)
Mills, lain (Mariden)
Trippier, David


Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Mills, Peter (West Devon)
Trotter, Neville


Fry, Peter
Miscampbell, Norman
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Gardner, Edward (South Fylde)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Moate, Roger
Viggers, Peter


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Molyneaux, James
Waddington, David


Glyn, Dr Alan
Monro, Hector
Wakeham, John


Goodhart, Philip
Moore, John
Walker, Rt Hon Peter (Worcester)


Goodhew, Victor
Morgan, Geraint
Walker, Bill (Perth & E Perthshire)


Goodlad, Alastair
Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Gorst, John
Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)
Waller, Gary


Gower, Sir Raymond
Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)
Walters, Dennis


Gray, Hamish
Mudd, David
Ward, John


Greenway, Harry
Murphy, Christopher
Warren, Kenneth


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)
Myles, David
Watson, John


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Needham, Richard
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Grist, Ian
Nelson, Anthony
Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd & Stev'nage)


Gryils, Michael
Neubert, Michael
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Gummer, John Selwyn
Newton, Tony
Whitney, Raymond


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&Ew'll)
Normanton, Tom
Wickenden, Keith


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Nott, Rt Hon John
Wiggin, Jerry


Hannam, John
Oppenhelm, Rt Hon Mrs Sally
Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)


Haselhurst, Alan
Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)
Winterton, Nicholas


Hastings, Stephen
Paisley, Rev Ian
Wolfson, Mark


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Parkinson, Cecil
Young, David (Bolton East)


Hawksley, Warren
Parris, Matthew
Younger, Rt Hon George


Hayhoe, Barney
Patten, Christopher (Bath)



Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Patten, John (Oxford)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Heddle, John
Pattie, Geoffrey
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and


Henderson, Barry
Pawsey, James
Mr. Anthony Merry.


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Percival, Sir Ian

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 32 (Questions on amendments) and agreed to.

Mr. SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to, pursuant to Standing Order No. 18 (Business of Supply).

Resolved,
That this House welcomes the important contribution made by the Report of the Home Affairs Committee relating to section 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824, accepts the need for a change in the law, and looks forward to the imminent publication of the Law Commission's Report on Attempt and to the public response to these reports, as providing the basis for an early decision as to the best way of reforming the law while ensuring adequate protection for the public.

Orders of the Day — STEEL WORKERS (SEVERANCE PAY)

Motion made, and Question proposed.

That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Brooke.]

Mr. Bill Homewood: Mr. Bill Homewood (Kettering) rose—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman should wait a moment. I shall time the debate from when I call him.

Mr. Homewood: I am grateful that you, Mr. Speaker, and the Minister are here because I felt such an idiot on the last occasion and I thought that again today I might be standing here addressing an empty House in ethereal circumstances.
It is a source of constant irritation that when the media reports on the terms offered to steel workers when they are asked to agree to a closure, the top figure which applies to only a small number of workers who are being made redundant, is quoted. As a result, £17,000 is the magic figure. That was the figure used for Bilston and Corby. It is also being used in headlines about the Port Talbot and Llanwern arrangements. Perhaps I should not find that so objectionable if other industrial and social statistics were quoted in the same way. However, for those instances the average is always used.
Steel workers' compensation for job loss after closure is made up of a number of elements, one of which is the State redundancy payment. There is also the ECSC

readaptation scheme, guaranteeing a wages make-up for two years for those under 60 years of age and for two and a half years for those over 60. It is paid to those drawing unemployment pay if they are over 55 years of age, but only to those who obtain a job if they are under 55. Severance pay is the subject of negotiations between the British Steel Corporation and the trade unions. I fear that that will settle down at about 62 weeks' pay, based on the average earnings of the last 13 weeks of normal work and including all accrued holiday money.
On the subject of Corby, I understand from a councillor that the average pay-out will be between £7,000 and £8,000, which is hardly the grandiose position portrayed by the media. It is not generous for the majority of those who have spent much of their lives in the industry and who now find themselves thrown out of work at 35 or 40 years of age in a town like Corby, which will be an employment desert for at least the next four years.
Seventy two per cent. of the population of Corby live in public housing. For many, the prospect of moving to another area for work is not bright. For those who are prepared to purchase a house, the severance pay will almost certainly be swallowed up. The average price of a house is more than £23,000. In addition, there are the iniquitous transfer and moving costs.
The debate concerns those who will not be anywhere near as fortunate as those in circumstances that I have described, even though they have lost their jobs for the same reason as the BSC workers, namely, the closure of a steelworks. Throughout the steel industry there is, and always has been, a substantial and necessary amount of work that the main employer, be it BSC or a private employer, has subcontracted to other undertakings, mainly under the headings of civil engineering, furnace wrecking and rebuilding, industrial painting, lorry hire, the production of byproducts, scrap cutting and burning. They subcontracted those jobs on the basis that it is easy to hire and fire subcontractors if they are there only in respect of a specific job.
Unfortunately for those with whom I am concerned, it has never worked out that way. People came into the steelworks to do contract work, have become


highly skilled at that operation, and during the course of their employment at a steelworks have become permanent. There is one contractor in Corby who has a specific works contract with his employees that states quite specifically that they will never be employed outside Corby. I know that that does not apply only to Corby, but to a great number of steel undertakings in Britain. It will become a problem in Port Talbot and Llanwern in the near future.
In Corby, although it is difficult to get exact figures, many contractors have yet to determine their attitudes. I suppose that when the iron and steelworks finally depletes its employment resources, some of them may find jobs in other places, but the common assumption is that no fewer that 500 people indirectly employed by the BSC will lose their jobs as a direct consequence of the closure of the iron and steelworks.
Trade unions in the steel industry have for many years argued that the employment of contractors in iron and steel works should be restricted to work of a temporary nature and that all other work should be carried out by direct labour. For reasons known only to themselves—there have been many guesses, but I shall not repeat them, because I should be reluctant to shelter behind parliamentary privilege—the employers have always resisted these advances. In consequence, in Corby 5,500 people directly employed by the BSC will leave the industry on one set of terms and 500 people indirectly employed by the BSC will leave on substantially worse terms because their employers will not provide severance pay to the extent of that provided by the BSC.
This debate is designed to bring the matter to the Government's attention. I urge upon them the necessity to correct something that on two moral counts is utterly wrong. First, it is necessary to bring it to the Government's notice, because on two occasions the Prime Minister has defended severance payments to steel workers—once in the House and again on "Panorama" on television—without apparently being aware that many steel workers do not get such payments.
There should be no doubt that the people about whom I am speaking are steel workers. It will come as no surprise to the empty Government Benches tonight, but it may come as a surprise to right

hon. and hon. Gentlemen who contributed to the debate on the appointment of the new BSC chairman that steel cannot be produced without furnace workers, furnace builders, civil engineering squads and scrap cutters and burners. I say that it would come as a surprise, because the more I listen to Conservative Members the more I realise that they have trouble in distinguishing between a steel ingot and the back of a bus and a steel worker and the Abominable Snowman.
I said that there were two moral issues. The first is the Under-Secretary's argument, when we discussed the matter with him, that the Government could not accept the responsibility of employers. We know that during every steel debate in the past 12 months—and we have had many—the Government have stuck like a leech to the concept that they were not prepared to intervene in the BSC's affairs.
There has never been any concealment of this duplicity. When the Government talk about aid to the BSC, it must be remembered that it is the taxpayer who is funding the buying out of the steel workers' jobs. It has been admitted on numerous occasion that £300 million of the £450 million earmarked by the Government for expenditure on the BSC in the current financial year will meet the redundancy and severance payments that have been agreed between the trade unions and the BSC management. It is not the employer—the BSC—who is funding the buying out of jobs, but the Government, and, in effect, the taxpayer.
It is immoral that one steel worker living next door to another steel worker can lose his job in the same circumstances and receive £5,000 or £6,000 less, simply because his employer is not the BSC, although in a number of cases he will have given more service to the steel industry than his BSC counterpart.
Another immorality stems from the reason why the BSC negotiated, and the Government funded steel workers' severance pay arrangements. It was purely and simply because without the main trade unions in the industry being induced by their membership to accept the position, steel closures would have been inordinantly more difficult than has been the case so far. Indeed, many people would argue that steel workers have been seduced into accepting situations that will, not only in the medium term but in the


short term, prove to be seriously to their disadvantage, as is already being admitted in places such as Hartlepool and East Moors.
Of course, the people about whom I am talking now have little trade union muscle. They are small, fragmented groups, incapable of embarrassing their employers, the BSC or the Government plant closures. Over the years there is do doubt that their employers have taken substantial profits from their efforts. This is obvious from their reluctance to lose their involvement. But the workers can now be discarded. No doubt their previous efforts have already been spent by the shareholders, and the Government know that the infamous policy of the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) can be exercised without fear. But surely, when people are losing their jobs, that is cavalier to the point of being iniquitous, immoral and obscene.
I ask the Government to assist in alleviating the awful bitterness that will be felt if nothing is done for these people. I estimate that the amount of money involved in Corby is £2½ million, or 0.81 per cent. of the amount that has already been allocated for redundancies in the current BSC financial year. It is a once-for-all payment, and it is, of course, only £700,000 more than the all-for-one payment that we shall be making to the new BSC chairman.

The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Michael Marshall): I think that the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Homewood) was. in a sense, selling himself a little short tonight. He made a number of points as if it were the first time that this argument had ever been pressed upon the Government. I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for being assiduous in the extreme in arguing this matter. I have had meetings with him. We have corresponded. He and some of his Friends have been to see me and have put a number of these points to me before. I appreciated the amiable way in which he opened the debate. I understand why he was not able to be with us when we hoped to discuss this matter a couple, of weeks earlier.
The hon. Gentleman was perhaps verging a little on the extravagant side. He made a number of points that we all understand. When there is a need to carry the party-political battle, sometimes one lets fly. I understand that very well. But I hope that the hon. Gentleman will at least discharge me from any suggestion that I do not know a steel ingot from the. back of a bus. After 20 years in the steel industry, if I did not know the difference between the two I certainly should have been given my redundancy very much earlier than I was.
There are many hon. Members on the Conservative Benches who take the keenest interest in the industry. I am glad to see my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) in his place, because I know that he, too, is concerned about the situation at Corby, as indeed is the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. John Farr: I thank my hon. Friend for mentioning my presence. I was seeking to intervene. Because of the shortage of time, I shall not do so fully. However, I should like to endorse fully nearly all of what has been said by the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Homewood). As the Member for an adjacent constituency, I have admired the way in which the hon. Gentleman has struggled with these very difficult problems. Indeed, the question of the subcontractors is one that has caused concern to hon. Members on both sides of the House. I hope that my hon. Friend will give the hon. Gentleman a sympathetic reply.

Mr. Marshall: I appreciate that my hon. Friend has given cross-party support on this argument. I should like to make it clear that I cannot help but be sympathetic towards many of the basic arguments that are put forward.
I have to be somewhat brief in the time remaining. I have only about 10 minutes, so I may not be able to deal quite as fully as I would wish with this matter.
It is true that contract workers frequently work side by side for many years with BSC employees. They do as thorough and dedicated a job. In many senses they are as loyal to the BSC as the corporation's own employees, but of


course there are differences. The earnings vary, according to the particular job that they do, and in a number of cases the salary earnings may well be comparable.
To all intents and purposes, therefore, I take the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's point in saying that they may seem to be identical to the BSC employees. In that sense, in a closure situation, I can well understand the feeling that they may have that the situation is unfair from their point of view. Indeed, when the hon. Gentleman came to see me, on 1 April, I think, with the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam), I was very much moved by the argument that was put and by the feelings of bitterness that this situation creates within a small community. I understand the point perfectly well.
I want to make it quite clear that I start from a position of great personal sympathy for the argument that is being put forward. Indeed, I have great personal sympathy for the hardship that arises in these situations. I hope very much to have an opportunity of seeing this in the wider context of what is happening at Corby, the remedial actions, and the whole future for Corby when I visit it some time next month. I shall be writing to the hon. Gentleman to advise him when the date of that visit is confirmed.
However, before we come to the question of the BSC's payment I should make clear the considerable role that the Government play and continue to play wherever they see that they have an action open to them. I think that the Government was trying to suggest that the Government had within their hands greater powers than I believe is the case. I have consistently argued that the question of severance pay is a matter for settlement between the BSC and its employees. As for the payment of benefits for contract workers as well as for the BSC's employees, under the terms of the European Coal and Steel Community—an issue on which the hon. Gentleman and I have corresponded—he will know that we are actively pursuing the opportunities open to us. We expect that about 200 of the 600 contract workers at Corby will be eligible for those benefits. Some contract workers at Shotton will probably also qualify, taking the total number of contractors'

employees who will be eligible to nearly 600. That is a sizeable number.
I hope at least that after all our discussions and correspondence the hon. Gentleman understands the logic of our position on the BSC payments. We do not feel that we can intervene in such negotiations without undermining much of the role of management and the trade unions. The hon. Gentleman, knows very well that that view has been taken by successive Governments. It is not a new view. The previous Labour Government had to face the same situation during closures at Ebbw Vale, East Moors and Shelton, where redundancies included contract workers. Like us, they decided that they were unable to intervene in terms of severance payments, and that they were for the BSC and its employees to decide. When one considers the wider question of the taxpayers' funding—as the hon. Gentleman said—one finds that the same attitude prevailed during the period of the previous Labour Government.
The hon. Gentleman said that we should intervene because, by allocating the money for severance payments, we already have a major stake. As he knows, we have not allocated a set amount of money to the BSC for redundancy payments. It is important that this aspect is made clear to the House. It is true that the nationalised industries are constrained by statute from raising money to finance their operations. The Government therefore provide directly the bulk of their financial requirements, including money required to fund redundancies within the cash limits. However, the private sector does not operate under those constraints and has access to commercial markets to raise finance if it cannot generate all its immediate requirements internally.
We have therefore allocated a global sum, leaving the corporation to assign that money according to its perceived priorities. Much of the hon. Gentleman's argument stems from the assumption that there is a loss-making situation. I recognise that at present that assumption is realistic. However, he must also recognise that when—as we all hope—BSC returns to profitability, redundancy payments will need to be self-funded.
Most contract workers at BSC sites have separate employers and are not BSC employees. The hon. Gentleman has raised


several wider questions. I accept that they show that contractors' employees often work entirely on BSC sites. When they lose their jobs it is as poignant as it is for a BSC employee. However, it is not for me or for the Government to say to whom BSC should make severance payments.
I also have sympathy with BSC's point of view. It would be asking a great deal of an employer to extend severance payments to employees of another company. Even if the Government could intervene, and if we were to tell BSC to make payments to contract workers, other inequities would follow. We should have to draw another dividing line that would leave several sections of workers on the wrong side. There would then be pressure to make payments to the suppliers of goods and services. What about the contract workers who have been made redundant in the past? I have already cited those made redundant in the lifetime of the previous Labour Government. Surely they would feel that they had been treated unfairly. What about those employees of BSC who leave shortly before the works close either by chance or in order to get into the local jobs queue first? They would no doubt press for equal treatment and say that, like contract workers, they were directly affected by the closure, even if they were not actually employed by the BSC at the time.
Looking beyond the BSC, we should be opening even bigger floodgates. If we put pressure on the BSC we should be creating a precedent for other nationalised industries. The hon. Gentleman needs to consider only for a moment the case of British Shipbuilders and the closure of shipyards to realise that the parallel would be argued and all the same difficulties would apply.
Having said that we will not interfere with the BSC's arrangements, let us consider the alternative suggested by the hon. Gentleman, namely, that a Government-funded

scheme might include contract workers. Alas, that would open the floodgates to similar groups of employees in other industries, who would want similar schemes. As the House knows, the constraints on public expenditure simply do not allow for that possibility.
Redundant steel workers, including many contract workers, already benefit from the two statutory schemes, for redundancy payments and for payments under ISERBS within the European Coal and Steel Community. A further statutory scheme could not take into account the local variations that are a feature of severance payments negotiations. Furthermore, it seems unlikely that the level of severance pay under a statutory scheme could match that recently agreed by the BSC.
Therefore, while I regret that I cannot offer the hon. Gentleman any prospect of a change in our policy in this matter, his representations and his genuine concern at the predicament of this group of workers have prompted me, out of sympathy and a long-standing personal connection with the industry, and because of my past knowledge of Corby, to consider whether there is any room for manoeuvre. I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that I find that there is no such room. The precedents that I have cited and the difficulties that would be raised are insuperable. They are the reasons that prompted the previous Government to take the same view.
It is with no sense of satisfaction that I have to come to that view. If we could assist—I understand the hon. Gentleman's arguments—we should be glad to do so, but I see no room for manoeuvre, and I regret that the hon. Gentleman must take the answer that I have given him tonight, and that he has had in recent weeks.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at eighteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.